For the Petitioner : Mr. Jay Kishor Singh and Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocates Dated, the 22nd day of July, 2010

ORDER

 Challenge in these proceedings purportedly u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is to the order dated 21.01.10 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 161/07. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 15.12.06 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar whereby the said Forum has earlier ..2.. dismissed the complaint of the petitioner seeking claim under a mediclaim policy taken by him for the period from 08.05.01 to 07.05.02 and which was got renewed after one year by including his other family members. The complaint was in respect of the two surgeries which the petitioner had undertaken, one at C.M.C Hisar and other at Batra Hospital, Delhi and he incurred certain expenditure to the extent of Rs.30,000/- on the first surgery and Rs.50,000/- on the second surgery. The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company primarily on the ground that the particular ailment/disease for which the petitioner had undergone the surgeries at C.M.C, Hisar and at Batra Hospital, New Delhi was specifically excluded under the terms of the policy and the second surgery taken at Batra Hospital by the petitioner was a consequence of the first surgery/disease. Both the fora below have returned the concurrent finding and, in our opinion, rightly so that the said ailment was not covered under the terms of the medical policy taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the orders passed by the fora below primarily on the ground that the terms of the policy were not conveyed to the petitioner but we are of the view that it is an after ..3. thought because such a plea was not taken before the fora below. In our view, the orders passed by the fora below are in accordance with the law and do not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.