PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, Ahmedabad dated 18.04.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the dismissal of his complaint by the District Forum. 2. Briefly put the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant took a Mediclaim Policy from the respondent no.2 worth Rs.55,000/-. The policy was valid for the period from 04.04.2006 to 03.04.2007. The case of the petitioner is that on 01.08.2006, he was admitted in Matru Hospital for treatment of falsiferum malariya. He remained under treatment till 07.08.2006. That the petitioner incurred medical expenses of Rs.29,598/- for which he filed his claim which was repudiated by the respondents. Thus, the petitioner alleging deficiency in service preferred a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking compensation of Rs.29,598/- along with 12% interest besides Rs.5,000/- as a special compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the petitioner as also Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. 3. The complaint was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner did not go under treatment and had filed a false claim. Basis of repudiation of the claim was that Dr. S.J. Metalia, who allegedly treated the petitioner at Matru Hospital vide his communication addressed to the respondent no.1 denied having treated the petitioner. 4. The District Forum on consideration of evidence particularly the letter of Dr. S.J. Metalia came to the conclusion that the petitioner is faulted to discharge his onus of proving the correctness of his claim and dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. 5. Being aggrieved order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the State Commission vide the impugned order. 6. It is against the aforesaid concurrent finding of facts the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 7. The short point, which requires determination in this revision petition is whether or not Dr. S. J. Metalia treated the petitioner for so called disease-falsiferum malaria during the period from 01.08.2006 to 07.08.2006 as projected by the treatment record submitted along with the complaint? 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable as it is based on the incorrect appreciation of the facts. He challenged the impugned order on the ground that it is based upon a purported letter of Dr. Metalia addressed to respondent no.1 wherein he has denied having signed the treatment file of the patient. It is contended that perusal of the letter would show that it does not detail of the files referred to in the letter, as such the District Forum as well as the State Commission has fallen in error in relying upon the aforesaid letter which has not even been properly proved either by filing affidavit of Dr. Metalia or producing him as a witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that malafide of the respondents is also clear from the fact that although the claim was submitted at the earliest, the respondent insurance company failed to settle the claim for almost one year. Learned counsel has thus urged us to accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order and allow the prayer made in the complaint. 9. In order to appreciate the issue in dispute and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner it would be useful to have a look on the correspondence exchanged between the respondent no.1 and Dr.S.J. Metalia. Petitioner has placed on record photocopy of the letter dated 27.12.2006 sent by the respondent no.1 to Dr.S.J. Metalia, Matru Hospital also the reply of Dr.S.J. Metalia dated 01.01.2007 addressed to the respondent no.1. 10. The letter of respondent no.1 addressed to Dr.S.J. Metalia dated 27.12.2006 reads thus: “We have received multiple reimbursement claim files from insured being treated at Matru hospital, Bapunagar. All the insured have been admitted in Matru Hospital under your care and treatment. On going through the claim files, the findings are as follows: nearly all claims are with diagnosis of Malaria, all have been admitted for a duration of 7-8 days, 7-8 viggos have been purchased for each patient, nearly 3 litres of IV fluid is infused to all patients on a daily basis, overuse of medicines is evident viz. 16 injections of Rantac and pantoprazole each have been advocated, 2-3 antibiotics have been prescribed on a daily basis, the medicines have been charged above the MRP. There is gross overcharging and unjustifiable overuse of medications. All the prescriptions bear your stamp and sign. In some cases nutritional powders and IV fluids worth Rs.5,000/- have been shown to be purchased on the day of discharge. On account of the above mentioned irregularities and unethical practices. We seek justification from your regarding the same. Please treat this matter as serious and urgent.” 11. The letter of Dr.S.J. Metalia addressed to respondent no.1 reads thus: “Sir, I have received your letter suggesting gross irregularities in reimbursement files of Matru Hospital. I am qualified Physician, practicing since last 17 years. I am Cardiologist to LIC of India, medical examiner of Aviva Life Sciences, Relience etc. I developed Kakadiya Hospital (Ahmedabad Diamond Association medical Trust) as pioneer Senior Physician, which is one of the best medical institutes of Ahmedabad. I.C.C.U. of Kakadiya Hospital serves people of east Ahmedabad (Naroda to Khokhara) and nearby villages. First of all, I am not Director or Owner or Partner of Matru Hospital. I am visiting Physician at the Matru Hospital. You have given summary of irregularities. I HAVE NOT SIGNED ANY OF THESE FILES. I have told this, during our talk at Paramount office, 10 times. You may check signature on these files. Please don’t blame me of signing these files. You may ask about any irregularity to Matru Hospital.” 12. On perusal of the above letters, it is evident that since the respondents had received multiple reimbursement claims from the insured patients purported to have been treated by Dr. S.J. Metalia at Matru Hospital, Bapunagar. Therefore, the respondent no.1 sought clarification from Dr.S.J. Metalia and Dr.S.J. Metalia vide his letter dated 01.01.2007 informed the respondent no.1 that he was neither the Director nor the Partner of Matru Hospital, he was visiting Physician and he has not signed any of files regarding which the respondent no.1 had sought information vide its letter dated 27.12.2006. 13. The petitioner has also placed on record photocopies of his alleged treatment record. On perusal of the photocopies of the treatment record purported signed by Dr.S.J. Metalia and on comparison of those signatures with the signatures appended on the letter dated 01.01.2007, we find that the signatures of Dr.S.J. Metalia on the treatment record do not tally with the signatures on the photocopies of the treatment record. This casts a strong doubt against the correctness of mediclaim filed by the petitioner. Otherwise also in order to succeed in his complaint onus of proof of his treatment at Matru Hospital by Dr. S. J. Metalia was on the petitioner. This onus could be easily discharged by the petitioner by producing Dr. S.J. Metalia as a witness or filing his affidavit confirming that Dr.S.J. Metalia did treat the petitioner during the period from 01.08.2006 to 07.08.2006. The petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to discharge his onus, therefore, we are of the view that both the Fora below were right in concluding that the petitioner has failed to prove his claim. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the concurrent finding returned by the Fora below, which may call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 14. As a consequence of above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. | 
