ORDER (ORAL) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Complainants is the order dated 11.03.2016, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.316 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has -2- upheld the order dated 04.06.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.128 of 2014. By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint preferred by the Petitioners herein against the Respondent Insurance Company, namely, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. In the said Complaint, the Complainants had questioned the correctness and legality of the letter dated 13.08.2013, issued by the Insurance Company to them, repudiating the claim made by the Complainant No.1, the son of Complainant No.2, for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his father for undergoing Coronary Artery By Pass (CABG) procedure at the Fortis Escort Hospital. 2. At the outset we may note that the claim had been repudiated by the Insurance Company on the sole ground that as per the available Medical Certificate, duly verified by the treating Doctor, at the time of obtaining the policy the Insured had failed to disclose that he was suffering from hypertension and diabetes for the last 4/5 years of the taking of the policy in question, and such claim was excluded for four years under the terms and conditions of the said policy, which fact had not been disclosed by the Insured at the time of taking the policy. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. Assailing the afore-said finding returned by both the Fora below to the effect that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim on the afore-said ground of non-disclosure of pre-existing disease, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has strenuously urged that the said finding is based on surmises and conjectures, in as much as there was no conclusive evidence on record, from where it could be deduced that the Insured -3- was actually suffering from hypertension or diabetes for the last 4/5 years. On the contrary, the blood test reports on record, showed that all clinical parameters of the Insured were normal. 5. Having carefully perused the documents on record, in particular the Discharge Summary, issued by the Fortis Escort Hospital at the time of discharge of Complainant No.2 after the CABG procedure, we are of the opinion that there is no Jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in the limited Revisional Jurisdiction vested in this Commission, particularly when the afore-stated concurrent finding of fact about non-disclosure of material information regarding pre-existing disease, recorded by both the Fora below has not been challenged as being perverse on any ground, whatsoever. 6. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. |
