1.         The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 915 of 2013 in which order dated 30.05.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 404 of 2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Commission.  

2.         While the Revision Petitioner No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant No. 1 and 2) were Respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively before the State Commission and Complainant No. 1 and 2 before the District Forum and the Respondent No. 1 and 3 (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party No. 1 and 3) were Opposite Party No. 1 and 3 respectively before the District Forum and Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party No. 2) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party No. 2 before the District Forum.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 04.08.2016.  Parties filed Written Arguments on 28.10.2023 (Petitioner) and 10.11.2021 (Respondent) respectively. 

4.         Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainants and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

            (i)        Petitioners/Complainants took the medi claim from the Respondents/Opposite Parties. Petitioners gave every detail/information about their health without concealing anything and got examined by OPs’ panel doctors. The insurance covers medical expenses up to Rs.5 lacs as cashless facility.   

            (ii)       In June 2008, Complainant No. 2 felt behavioral problems and treated by local doctors and then admitted at Silver Oaks Hospital, Mohali on 26.08.2008 and discharged on 08.09.2008. In July 2011, Complainant No. 2 again felt pain in his brain. He was taken to Fortis Hospital, Mohali where he was admitted on 25.07.2011 and discharged on 28.07.2011. Doctors diagnosed a case of Brainstem Cavernoma in Midbrain. OP paid the medi claim of both the treatments.

            (iii)     Complainant No. 2 was taken to Medanta Institute of Neuro Sciences Gurgaon due to ill health despite previous treatments and was admitted on 14.03.2012 and surgery was conducted on 19.03.2012. The Complainant spent more than Rs.4 lacs for this treatment.

            (iv)      Complainant lodged claim with OP No. 1 and completed all formalities and provided all original claim papers including treatment and medical bills which are in OPs custody. Vide letter dated 11.09.2012, OPs refused to pay the genuine claim stating the disease as “per-existing”.  

            (v)       However, OPs are insuring the complainant for the last 5 years and as per own rules of OPs, pre-exist disease if any is also covered under the insurance. Due to non-payment of genuine claim, OPs have committed deficiency in service and complainants have suffered harassment and mental agony.

5.         Vide Order dated 30.05.2013, in the CC no. 404 of 2012 the District Commission has allowed the complaint and passed the following order:

            “We accordingly accept the complaint and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.3,42,356.71 with interest @9% per annum from the date of the repudiation i.e. 11.9.2012 till final payment. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs accessed at Rs.3000/-. The order be complied within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.”          

6.         Aggrieved by the said Order dated 30.05.2013 of District Commission, Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 08.06.2015 in FA No. 915 of 2013 allowed the appeal and passed the following order:

“17. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant/OPs is accepted. The order of the learned District Forum is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed being without any merit”.

7.         Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the Respondents had not controverted or objected at the time granting mediclaim with regard to the earlier treatment taken twice in different period and in different hospitals.

2. The District Forum appreciated the aforesaid facts and allowed the complaint on the basis of evidences produced before them and directed the Respondents to pay Rs.3,42,356.71/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till date of payment against the total sum assured of Rs.5.00 lacs and also Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.

3. The State Commission failed to appreciate that at the time of taking policy the Complainant had provided the detailed information about their heath honestly and without having concealed anything in the Proposal Form.

4. The impugned judgement is not sustainable in the eye of law and the complete absence of application of judicial mind has rendered the whole judgement void, ab-initio and hence liable to be quashed.

8.         Heard learned counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

            8.1       In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 7), the petitioner contended that Respondents rejected the claim on the ground of “pre-existing” disease knowing that the Complainant was suffering from “Brain Stem” since 1999, which was also recorded in Proposal Form and only after disclosing the disease, Mediclaim policy was granted to him. However, Respondents had not controverted or objected at the time of granting medi-claim with regard to the earlier treatment taken twice in different period and in different hospitals.

            8.2       On the other hand Respondents contended that the complainant had been suffering from brainstem AVM being a pre-existing disease, he was not entitled to claim until the expiry of the four continuous claim-free policy years. Respondents provided the exclusionary clauses as follows in view of which Complainant was not entitled to the claim:

“4.0. The company shall not be liable to make any payment under the policy in respect of any expenses whatsoever incurred by the Insured person in connection with or in respect of.  

4.1. All disease/injuries which are pre-existing when the cover incepts for the first time. However, those diseases will be covered after four continuous claim-free policy years for the purpose of applying this condition, the period of cover under Medi-claim policy taken from National Insurance Company only will be considered.

Pre-existing disease like Diabetes and Hypertension will be covered from the inception of the policy on payment of additional premium by the insured.”

8.3       In support of their contentions, Respondents relied upon the following judgements of this Commission:

(a) Surinder Kaur Vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1544)

(b) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajinder Singh (2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 668)

9.         We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties. District Forum, while allowing the complaint, has observed in its orders as follows:

“20.    Now the question arises whether the ops were aware about the pre existing disease or the same was concealed by the insured. Ex.C8 is the copy of the proposal form furnished by Sh. R.P.Verma (complainant) having provided the details of the persons to be insured namely Smt. Krishna Verma, 50 years (wife) and Mr. Pardeep Verma, 24 years (son). In respect of Mr. Pardeep Verma against the column meant for details of pre existing diseases/illnesses, it is recorded "Brain Stem AVM since 1999" and in the column meant for the duration of the disease, 9 years have been recorded.

21.       Sh. Jaspal Singh, Sr. Divisional Manager of op no.2 in his sworn affidavit, Ex. OPA failed to state anything about the proposal form Ex.C8. Here, it may be noted that the complainant had filed an application on 30.1.2013 calling upon the ops to produce (1) copy of the proposal form (2) copy of the treatment allegedly taken by consumer in 1989 as per para no.3 of the reply of the ops. The ops produced the documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 but failed to them to produce the proposal form for the reasons best known to them.

22.       It is the plea taken up by the complainants that because of the behavioural problems having experienced by the complainant Pardeep Kumar in June, 2008 he was firstly got treated from local doctor and then he was got admitted in Silver Oaks Hospital, Mohali on 26.8.2008 and discharged 8.9.2008 after treatment. The claim lodged by the complainants with the ops regarding the said treatment was paid. Similarly it is the plea taken up by the complainants that in July, 2011 the complainant Pardeep Kumar had experienced pain in his brain. He was rushed to local doctor at Rajpura who advised to get him checked from brain specialist. He was taken to Fortis Hospital, Mohali whereas he was admitted on 25.7.2011 and discharged on 28.7.2011 with follow up treatment. He was diagnosed a case of brain Stem Covernoma in Midbrain. The ops had paid mediclaim of the said treatment also.

23.       The ops have not controverted the pleas taken up by the complainants regarding the aforesaid two treatments got by the complainant from Silver Oaks Hospital, Mohali and Fortis Hospital, Mohali and simply put forth the plea that the complainants have not disclosed the name of the local doctor and of the hospital. The entire particulars with regard to the date of the treatment as also the names of the hospitals have been disclosed and therefore, it was for the ops to have controverted the said facts.

24.       The claim was not repudiated by op no.1 vide Ex.C9 on the ground that the complainants were guilty of suppression of the disease. The case put forth by the ops is that the disease in respect of which the complainant Pardeep Kumar was got treated was pre existing and therefore, it is the plea taken up by the ops that case of the complainants falls under the Exclusion Clause 4 as the complainant Pardeep Kumar was suffering from a pre existing disease. The ops having not controverted the proposal form, Ex.C8, in which it is categorically recorded that the complainant Pardeep Kumar was suffering from Brainstem AVM since 1999 and the ops further having failed to produce the proposal form as demanded by the complainants vide their application dated 30.1.2013, the only presumption that can be drawn is that the ops were aware about the pre existing disease particularly when the ops had disbursed the claim of the complainant Pardeep Kumar in respect of the treatment got by him in the year 2008 from 26.8.2008 to 8.9.2008 from Silver Oaks Hospital, Mohali and the treatment got by him from Fortis Hospital, Mohali during the period 25.7.2011 to 28.7.2011. It is only, thereafter that the policy No.8500000024 for the period 9.5.2012 to 8.5.2013 (copy Ex.C5) was issued by the ops with their eyes open that the complainant Pardeep Kumar was a patient suffering from Brainstem and therefore, the complainants can not be deprived of the claim on the ground that it was pre-existing disease. The plea of pre existing disease would have been relevant if this fact was not known to the insurance company as observed in the case of the citation New India Assurance Company Ltd. And others Vs. Sanjeev Puri 2005(3)CLT 591 of the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

25.       Sh. Sidhu, the learned counsel for the complainant also placed reliance upon the citation National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sardar Kulbir Singh III(2010)CPJ 276(NC) of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for the observation: "16. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent was guilty of suppression of facts. The case put forth is that there was pre-existing disease. That the case of the respondent falls under the Exclusion Clause 4 as the respondent was suffering from a pre-existing disease. As mentioned above, the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence, whatsoever except what has been stated in the Discharge Summary, to show that the respondent was suffering from Chronic Stable Angina".

26.       Even though the ops have produced in evidence Exs.OP1 to OP6, the medical record to show that the complainant Mr. Pardeep was suffering from Brainstem since 1999, as discussed earlier, it is not the plea of the ops that the complainants had obtained the policies having suppressed the same. Ex.Op1 is the copy of the MRI of brain obtained from Delta MRI Centre, Patiala on 2.9.99 having made the provisional diagnosis :Space occupying lesion in pons midbrain and cerebellum - ? Glioma. Ex.OP2 is the discharge summary issued by Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, New Delhi in respect of Pardeep Kumar and against the diagnosis it is recorded "Brain Stem & Cerebellar lesion cause? Against the history, it is recorded,: Gradual deterioration of hand writing over the last 8 years. Occasionally inability to maintain proper balance walking with deviation towards right side 4 years. Past history of head injury 10 years back with right opthalmoplegia, recovered in a month Jaundice 4 years back. Ex.OP3 is the follow up of a mass in the pons and midbrain dated 27.6.2000 got from GMR Institute of Imaging & Research MRI Scan Centre New Delhi. Ex.OP4 is the follow case of Brainstem tumour involving pons, midbrain and both middle cerebellar peduncles in respect of Mr.Pardeep Verma dated 4.2.2002 obtained from GMR Institute of Imaging & Research MRI Scan Centre, New Delhi. Ex.OP5 and Ex.OP6 are MRI- report dated 26.8.2008 and CT Head report dated 25.6.2008 respectively in respect of Pardeep Verma obtained from the department of Interventional Radiology and Imaging Sciences of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology having recorded the findings: "There is evidence of heterogenous mass lesion showing cystic areas seen involving the posterior mes encephalon and dorsal pons"

27.       It was submitted by Sh. D.P.S.Anand, the learned counsel for the ops that admittedly the complainant Pardeep Kumar was aware of the disease of the Brainstem AVM since 1999 before inception of the policy as disclosed in the proposal form, Ex.C8 that he had been suffering for the same since 9 years. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is not covered under exclusion clause 4 which provides: "4. The company shall not be liable to make any payment under this policy in respect of any expenses whatsoever incurred by any insured person in connection with or in respect of.

4.1       All diseases will be covered which are pre existing when the cover incepts for the first time. However, those diseases will be covered after four continuous claim free policy years. For the purpose of applying this condition, the period of cover under Mediclaim policy taken from National Insurance Company only will be considered. Pre existing diseases like Diabetes and Hypertension will be covered from the inception of the policy on payment of additional premium by the insured"

28.       It was submitted by Sh. Anand, that first policy No.85000018 was taken for the period 9.5.2008 to 8.5.2009 as would appear from Ex.C1, the copy of the policy schedule and in that way four continuous Claim free policy years would expire during the policy period 9.5.2011 to 8.5.2012 but admittedly the complainant had got the claim reimbursed for the treatment got by him during the period 26.8.2008 to 8.9.2008 and then during the period 25.7.2011 to 28.7.2011. 

29.       Since the ops were aware about the pre existing disease of the patient Pardeep Kumar and they had already disbursed the claim of the complainant Pardeep Kumar on that count in the years 2008 and 2011, the ops were not justified in having repudiated the claim of the complainants regarding the treatment got by him in respect of the same very disease from Medanta Institute of Neurosciences during the period 14.3.2012 to 26.3.2012. With their eyes open the ops further sold the policy Ex.C5 for the period 9.5.2012 to 8.5.2013. The ops are obliged to disburse the amount of the claim, in respect of which the complainants have produced in evidence Ex.C6, the discharge summary showing the date of admission as 14.3.2012, date of discharge as 26.3.2012 and the date of the surgery as 19.3.2012. They have also produced the hospital bill, Ex.C7 for Rs.3,42,356.71. Policy no.85000035 valid for the period 9.5.2011 to 8.5.2012, copy Ex.C4, was for the sum insured of Rs.5lacs and therefore, the complainants are entitled to the disbursement of the amount of Rs.3,42,356.71. We accordingly accept the complaint and direct the ops to make the payment of Rs.3,42,356.71 with interest @9% per annum from the date of the repudiation i.e. 11.9.2012 till final payment. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs accessed at Rs.3000/-. The order be complied within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.”

10.       State Commission while allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and setting aside the orders passed by the District Forum observed as follows:

“10.    In the appeal, it has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that the District Forum had lost sight of the fact that the complainant Pardeep Kumar was suffering from Brainstem Cavernoma before 1999 whereas the first policy was taken as on 9.5.2008, therefore, at that time, it was a pre-existing disease and the mediclaim bill for which the complaint was filed was for the period 14.3.2012 to 26.3.2012. In case the first policy is taken w.e.f. 9.5.2008, the 4 years were completed by 8.5.2012 whereas the claim was taken before expiry of the 4 years, therefore, the complainant according to the terms and conditions of the policy had not completed four claim free policy years. A reference could be made to Clause 4.1, which is reproduced as under:-

"4.1     All diseases/injuries which are pre-existing when the cover incepts for the first time. However, those diseases will be covered after four continuous claim free policy years. For the purpose of applying this condition, the period of cover under Mediclaim policy taken from National Insurance Company only will be considered. Pre-existing disease like Diabetes and Hypertension will be covered from the inception of the policy on payment of additional premium by the insured."

11.       According to that clause, in case treatment taken of any disease, which was pre-existing in nature, that will be covered after 4 continuous claim free policy years. According to the averments in the claim, he was suffering from Brainstem Cavernoma in midbrain. The Discharge Summary issued by Medanta Institute of Neuro Sciences Ex Op-10 in which primary diagnosis is 'Brainstem Carvernoma' and its history has been mentioned as under:-

"History: Presenting complaints & history of present illness:

This 27 yrs old gentleman was brought on 14.03.2012 with chief complaints of worsening of hand writing in 2000. Patient also started hitting objects on right side and started swaying to right side while jogging. This imbalance progressed, so he was taken to a local practitioner. MRI brain was done which revealed brainstem lesion for which patient was taken to number of physician/neurosurgeons (PGI, AIIMS, SCIIMS, Apollo/Fortis etc). No definite opinion could be made.

Patient was advised observation and repeat MRI at 6 months. Repeat MRI did not show increased size. Patient also improved symptomatically.

Patient banged pole while playing football following which his symptoms reappeared.

Again MRI was done, angio was done and same procedure was followed.

Patient developed depression for which was treated, had dry reactions twice. Patient cannot walk. Now, he has been brought here for further ailment.

He is admitted here for elective surgery."

12.       Further before going to Medanta Institute of Neuro Sciences, the patient had taken treatment from number of Physicians of Neuro Surgeon, PGI, AIIMS, SCIIMS, Apollo/Fortis etc.. Complainant No. 2 was suffering from this disease before 1999, there is a report of Delta MRI Centre Ex Op-1, wherein provisional diagnose was referred as above:-

"Provisional Diagnosis: Space occupying lesion in pons midbrain and cerebellum-? Glioma"

13.       Then he has taken treatment from Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences in the year 1999 wherein the history was mentioned as under:-

:Gradual deterioration of hand writing over the last 8 yrs.

Occasionally inability to maintain proper balance walking with deviation towards right side 4 yrs. Past history of head injury 10 yrs back with Right opthalmoplegia, recovered in a month Jaundice 4 yrs back."

and in the investigation, it was found as under.-

"Pons, midbrain & cerebellar-lesion? Glioma"

14.       GMR Institute of Imaging & Research MRI Scan Centre on 27.6.2000 on the basis of MRI Brain observed as under:-

"On comparison with the last MR study on June 27, 2000, there is no significant interval change in the size, shape, signal characteristics or area of involvement by the mass. The associated edema involving the pons, midbrain and middle cerebellar penduncles is also unchanged."

15.       Then the patient was checked in Sri Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology on 25.6.2008 and observed as under:-

• "There is evidence of a heterogenous mass with calcification in its caudal aspect and cystic areas with a haemorrhagic fluid level seen within it in its superior aspect.
• The lesion lies in the region of the upper pons and lower mid brain more towards the left and measures 2.7 x 2.4 cms.
• Cerebellum appears normal.
• Sellar & parasellar regions are normal.
• Gangliocapsular regions & thalami are normal.
• Grey white matter differentiation is maintained.
• Basal & suprasellar cisterns, cerebral sulel & fissures are maintained.
• Screening of bone windows revealed a normal skull vault."

16.       This medical record shows that this patient was having this problem in the brain before 1999, therefore, when the policy was taken for the first time in the year 2008, it was a pre-existing disease, therefore, for getting the claim of this disease, the complainant under Clause 4.1 of the terms and conditions was required to continuous four claim free years, which was not completed in the policy and accordingly, the Ops had repudiated the claim. But the leamed District Forum in the impugned order observed that he had taken the claim of the same disease in the year 2008 and 2011 and now they cannot say that on the basis of same clause, complainant No. 2 is not entitled to this claim. It was not denied by the counsel for the OPs that the treatment was also taken by complainant No. 2 of this disease in the year 2008 & 2011 and its claim was paid by the OPs but in case one wrong claim has been paid to complainant No. 2, it does not mean that another wrong claim should be paid to the complainant. Certainly, in case we go through the terms and conditions of the policy specially Clause 4.1, the complainant was required to complete four continuous claim free policy years, which were to complete as on 8.5.2012 whereas this claim is of the treatment for the period 14.3.2012 to 26.3.2012 within a period of 4 policy years and under Clause 4.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy, the same is not payable. The parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy, which is a contract between the parties and the Courts, cannot go beyond the contract between the parties. This aspect was ignored by the learned District Forum. This point was even not touched by the District Forum how complainant No. 2 will not come out of the purview of the Clause 4.1, the plea on the basis of which the claim has been allowed to the complainant that in case claim was paid in the year 2008 and 2011 then there should be no reason to clear this claim cannot be considered in view of specific clause 4.1 in the policy. In these circumstances, the order so passed by the learned District Forum is not legally sustainable.

17.       In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant /OPs is accepted. The order of the learned District Forum is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed being without any merit.”

11.       Heard learned counsels for both sides. Challenge is to the order dated 8.6.2015 of the State Commission vide which appeal filed by the insurance company was allowed, the order of District Forum was set aside and complaint was dismissed. The claim in question was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground of being covered under the exclusion clause 4.1 condition under which pre-existing ailments are not covered for first four years. In this case, the policy was taken first time from 9.5.2008 till 8.5.2009 and got renewed for subsequent four years till 8.5.2013. According to the Insurance Company, no claim for the pre-existing disease is covered under the policy till 8.5.2012. The present claim pertains to March 14-26, i.e. within the four years and hence repudiated. The petitioner herein on the other hand contends that the insurance company had already passed their first claim during the first year of the policy itself, and second claim during the fourth year of the policy and both the two earlier claim passed were within four years and hence, they could not repudiate the third claim on this ground of exclusion clause of 4.1 condition of the policy. The insurance company have admitted that the earlier two claims were wrongly passed by them and taken a plea that wrongful passing of two earlier claims are not a ground to pass a third wrongful claim. Counsel for insurance company admits that at no point of time, till the complainant took the plea of two earlier claims having been passed by the Insurance Company, they ever detected the mistake of two earlier claims having been wrongfully passed and/or took up the matter with the complainant in this regard. It is seen that for each of these years, premium amount paid was Rs.17,000/- plus for 4 years for sum assured of Rs.5 lakh and Rs.4063/- for sum insured of Rs.3 lakh. Had the first claim presented during the first year of the policy been rejected, it is quite possible that the insured may not have continued with this policy for the subsequent dates and paid the premium of subsequent years.

12.       Before both the fora below, the insurance Company has taken two plea of (a) suppression of material facts with respect to pre-existing disease (b) exclusion clause under condition 4.1. As they could not place on record any relevant documents/evidence with respect to suppression of pre-existing ailment, the issue relating to suppression was not pressed during the hearing on 09.05.2024, when the judgement was reserved. In this regard, counsel for petitioner has drawn our attention to documents at page 46 of the paper book under which pre-existing disease has been detailed as 'Brain Stem AVM since 1999'. He has also drawn our attention to order dated 16.3.2017 of this Commission vide which Insurance Company was permitted to place on record all the documents which were before the lower fora but have not been filed by them. This was in the context of counsel for Insurance Company seeking adjournment to seek instructions as to whether there is any proposal form in addition to the documents at page 46 which was filed by the petitioner/complainant on the basis of which policy in question was issued. Subsequently, on 12.3.2018, counsel for Insurance Company stated that whatever documents with the Insurance Company have been filed in pursuance to order dated 16.3.2017, stating further that proposal form as was directed to be filed is not available with the insurance company.         

13.       In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, especially those pertaining to passing of two earlier claims within the four year, as narrated in para 11, Insurance Company choosing not to file the requisite documents, as narrated in para 12, and documents at page 46 of the paper book remaining undisputed, exclusion clause 4.1 will not apply and Insurance Company was not justified in repudiating the claim on this ground. As was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 455 that Insurance Policy must be read holistically so as to give effect to reasonable expectations of all the parties including the insured and the beneficiaries-  it must be interpreted in a commercially sensible manner- coverage clauses to be read broadly, and ambiguity, if any, to be resolved in favour of insured-exclusions to be read narrowly. Hence, we are of the view that State Commission went wrong in reversing a well-reasoned order of the District Forum. We are not in agreement with the observations and findings of the State Commission, hence the orders of the State Commission cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is set aside, and order of the District Forum is restored.

14.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.