HEMANT KUMAR CHOKANI Vs. BANK OF AMERICA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 31.8.2006 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai allowing appeal against the order dated 14.1.2003 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint. District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the respondent to pay amount of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 27.1.1998, to the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner/complainant had taken from the respondent/opposite party a Hospitalization and Domiciliary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy for the period commencing from 20.9.1994 to 19.9.1995. This policy was renewed for the period upto 20.9.1996. It was alleged that due to pre-occupation, the petitioner had not renewed the policy from 21.9.1996. On 14.3.1997, he again obtained medi-claim policy from 13.3.1997 to 12.3.1998. On 27.1.1998, the petitioner underwent By-pass Surgery at Apollo Hospital, Chennai. Claim made of Rs. 1,78,353 under the policy was repudiated by the respondent by the letter dated 17.3.1998 under exclusion 4.1 of the policy. Complaint filed thereafter seeking payment of the said amount was contested by the respondent. It was, inter alia, alleged that the policy in question taken from 13.3.1997 was a fresh policy. As per the record of Apollo Hospital, it was evident that the petitioner was suffering from heart problem since 1994 itself and heart disease being pre-existing was not covered under the policy. The District Forum's order was set aside in appeal by the State Commission holding the policy in question to be a fresh policy and petitioner having suppressed of his having heart problem since 1994 at the time of purchase of the policy in question. Note was taken of the contents of the Discharge Summary Exhibit B1 of the Apollo Hospital, Chennai.

(3.) Short submission advanced by Mr. R.A. Padmanabhan for petitioner is that the policy commencing from 13.3.1997 was not a new/ fresh policy. In support of this submission he has invited our attention to the policy in question itself wherein it is stated that it was renewal of 48/09053 policy. However, the submission is without any merit. Admittedly, previous policy had expired on 20.9.1996 and the policy in question which was effective from 13.3.1997, was purchased after about 6 months thereof. Policy in question was, thus, a new policy. Presumably, at the time of purchase of policy in question, it was not disclosed by the petitioner that he was suffering from heart ailment since 1994 as noticed in the Discharge Summary of Apollo Hospital. There is, thus, no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.