SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for realization of Insurance amount, compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant joined the Kamadenu Insurance policy of the opp.parties for a sum of Rs.25060/-. The validity of the policy was from 12.2.2001 to 11.2.2004. his wife and children were also had coverage of the above insurance policy. The complainant’s wife Syrandhry has undergone a surgery in connection with Fibroid Uterus at the Yogakshema Hospital on 24,10.2003. A sum of Rs.30,000/- has been spent towards the hospital charges. The complainant thereupon filed a claim before the insurance company, but the same was repudiated on the ground that the complainant was having pre-existing illness at the time of joining the policy. The repudiation is lnot proper. Hence the complaint. Opp.party filed version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The issuance of policy in favour of the complainant is admitted As per the provisions of Kamadhenu Insurance policy the pre-existing disease of the insured have no coverage under the policy.. Clause III of the policy deals with the pre-existing disease and the illness prevailing at the time of joining the policy. According to the complainant his wife under gone treatment at Yogakshema hospital, Veliyam as in patient during the period from 22.12.2003 to 1.1.2004 The illness suffered by her was Fibroid Uterus. As per the medical report of Dr. M.N. Yogadathan Nampoothiry of Yogakshema Hospital who has been attending the inpatient, the patient has been suffering from the said diseases for last 5 years prior to the date of admission in the said hospital. From the report it is obvious that from the year 1998 onwards, the complainant’s wife was suffering from the above disease and at the time of taking the policy she was having pre-existing illness. Clause III of the policy condition disallow the expenses in connection with the pre-existing illness. The opp.party has issued the policy relying on the declaration given by the complainant himself . The contract of insurance is based on the utmost good faith and the insured is expected to disclose all material facts The complainant herein suppressed the illness of his wife which is with malafide intention. Hence there is violation of policy conditions. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint Points for consideration are: 1. Whether the complainant’s wife has any pre-existing illness 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext.P1 to P5 are marked No oral or documentary evidence by the opp.party Points: As a matter of fact Ext.P1 policy is admitted and its period of validity. According to the complainant his wife Sairandhri who is also covedred by Ext.Pq1 policy had undergone a surgery for Fibroid Uterus at the Yogashema Hospital, Veliyam and she was an inpatient from 24.12.2003 to 1.1.2004 and a claim preferred by him was repudiated by the opp.party on the ground that the treatment undergone by his wife is a pre-existing disease which is illegal. The contention of the opp.party is that Ext.P1 policy was issued to the complainant on the basis of the declaration filed by him and that in the declaration he has suppressed in fact that his wife is suffering from Fibroid uterus even prior to the issuance of Ext.P1 policy. Ext.P5 is the medical certificate issued by the Yogakshema Hospital and Ext.P3 is the medical Report. Both these documents were produced by the complainant. PW.2 is the doctor who issued Ext.P3. In Ext.P3 it is stated that Sairandhri, complainant’s wife was suffering from Fibroid uterus 5 years prior to the examination of her by PW.2 on 23.12.2003. PW.2 has stated that he has accorded in Ext.P3 that the patient was suffering from Fibroid uterus for 5 years as stated by the patient. In cross examination PW.2 has stated that when she came for treatment she was having severe pain and bleeding . He would further stated that in column 6 of Ext.P3 the words since 5 years means that the patient was having pain and bleeding since 5 years. The complainant has not examined the said Sairandhri to disprove the version of PW.2 that he has stated so as stated by the patient. From the evidence of PW.2 and Ext.P3 it is obvious that the complainant’s wife was suffering from Fibroid uterus even prior to the taking ofExt.P1 policy. Section III clause 1 of conditions of Ext.P1 shows that no insurance coverage is available for pre-existing disease and the disease prevailing at the time of joining the policy. In these circumstances we are of the view that the repudiation of the claim is proper and that there is no deficiency in service. Points found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 30th day of April, 2009. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Mohanan PW.2. – Yoganathan Namboothiri List of documents for the complainant P1. – Policy P2. – Insurance policy P3. – Medical report P4. – Repudiation letter P5. – Medical certificate | 
