SHIV KUMAR MALHAN Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER was the complainant. He purchased from the respondent/opposite party-Insurance Company a medi-claim insurance policy for the period from 29. 1. 2004 to 29. 1. 2005 which was got renewed up to 28. 1. 2006. Petitioner alleged that he had suddenly developed some heart problem in April 2005 and he underwent by-pass surgery in National Heart Institute, New Delhi on 4. 5. 2005. Amount of Rs. 3. 00 lakh was stated to have been spent on treatment. Claim made for reimbursement of the amount spent on treatment was repudiated by the respondent on the ground that petitioner was suffering from pre-existing disease which he suppressed at the time of purchase and renewal of medi-claim policy. Complaint alleging deficiency in service filed thereafter by the petitioner was contested by the respondent on the above ground taken in repudiation letter. The District Forum accepting the said defence taken by the respondent dismissed the complaint by the order dated 22. 1. 2007 and appeal against this order filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the State Commission by the order under challegnge dated 16. 8. 2007.

(2.) SHORT submission advanced by Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate whom we have heard on admission, is that the petitioner was unaware of his suffering from diabetes mellitus at the time of purchase as also renewal of the policy. According to him, no proposal was submitted for renewal of the policy beyond 29. 1. 2005 by the petitioner. Relevant portion of the discharge certificate pertaining to the petitioner issued by National Heart Institute has been set out on internal page No. 3 of the order of State Commission. This wold show that the petitioner was a known case of diabetes mellitus for the last six months. In the affidavit filed before the District Forum after the filing of complaint, the petitioner has not alleged that he was unaware of his having suffering from diabetes mellitus as noticed in the said discharge certificate. Further, it was not the case of petitioner before any of two Fora below that at the time of renewal of policy, no proposal was submitted by him. Petitioner cannnot be permitted to raise a plea of fact which was not taken before the Fora below for the first time in revision. Thus, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. R. P. dismissed.