Delay of 30 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          Respondent had taken a medi-claim policy in the year 1995 which was renewed from time to time.  In the year 2003, she developed arthritis in both her knees and got total replacement of both the knees in Hurkisondas Nurrotamdas Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbail by incurring expenses of Rs.2,70,940/-.  The petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that it was a preexisting

-2-

disease.  District Forum dismissed the complaint, but the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the complaint.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and find no infirmity in the same, except that the State Commission has erred in awarding sum of Rs.2,70,940/- which is more than the insured amount, i.e. Rs.2,60,000/-.  The State Commission could not have granted amount more than the insured amount.  Accordingly, the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.2,70,940/- to Rs.2,60,000/-.  Remaining order of the State Commission is upheld. 

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission and do not find that there has been any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act. 

-3-

          Since we have modified the order to the extent indicated above without issuing notice to the respondent to avoid the litigation expenses, the respondent, if aggrieved, would be at liberty to make an application for revival/restoration of the revision petition.

            Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.