Haryana

Karnal

CC/547/2022

Smt. Anita Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Star Health And Allied Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

P.K. Bhandari

11 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 547 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.19.09.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:11.11.2024

 

1. Smt. Anita Gupta widow of Shri Raman Kumar,
2. Rohit Gupta son of late Shri Raman Kumar,
3. Aayush Gupta son of late Shri Raman Kumar, all residents of house no.874, Sector-13, Urban Estate Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited, SCO 242, 1^st floor, Sector-12, opposite Mini Secretariat, Karnal-132001 through its Sr. Branch Manager.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Deepak Bhandari, counsel for the complainants.

                    Shri Mohit Goyal, counsel for the Opposite party.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that the husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainants no.2 and 3 late Shri Raman Kumar had purchased a health insurance policy and it has been running continuously for more than 10 years from the National Insurance Company. However, on the allurement of the agent of the OP, Raman Kumar had got ported his policy to the OP insurance company in February, 2021. At the time of ported the policy, the OP had seen the entire record and further got verified from previous insurance company i.e. National Insurance Company. The OP also got physically examined late Shri Raman Kumar from the doctor on its panel. At the time of porting the policy, the agent of OP did not disclose about the entire terms and conditions of the policy. On receipt of premium amount of Rs.49341/-, OP issued two health insurance cards first in the name of Raman Kumar and second in the name of Smt. Anita Gupta i.e. complainant no.1. No copy of the policy was ever handed over to late Shri Raman Kumar. Even the contents of the alleged policy were never read over and understand to late Shri Raman Kumar.

2.             It is further averred that Raman Kumar was hospitalized at Amritdhara Hospital, Karnal for the period of 10.11.2021 to 30.11.2021 as he was suffering from fever and lateron it was diagnosed as Dengue from the blood reports and it was also found that late Shri Raman Kumar was having only 18000 platelets, thus in order to save the life of late Shri Raman Kumar, the hospital decided to admit him in the ICU. He was got discharged on 30.11.2021. Due intimation was given to the OP telephonically after admission of late Shri Raman Kumar, because the said hospital was not on the panel of the OP. Thereafter, OP said to the complainants that after discharge from the hospital, they will have to submit complete record of treatments, bills as well as discharge summary etc. pertaining to the patient and further assured that the OP would reimburse the entire amount of treatment. Raman Kumar spent an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on his treatment. After discharge from the hospital, late Shri Raman Kumar submitted the claim with the OP for reimbursement of the said amount. OP had issued a letter dated 18.01.2022 for providing additional documents. In response of the said letter late Raman Kumar making clarification of the disease as put by the OP. It is told to the OP that late Shri Raman Kumar was not having any OPD slip, treatment record etc. as demanded by the OP because late Raman Kumar never faced such kind of disease earlier. He was admitted in the hospital in emergency, as such, he was never treated in the OPD, as such, no OPD record of present record is available. OP did not satisfy and insisted to Raman Kumar to provide the said record which was not in existence with Raman Kumar. Ultimately, OP repudiated the claim of Raman Kumar, vide letter dated 05.02.2022 on the false and frivolous ground. Raman Kumar died on 26.03.2022. Thereafter, complainants approached to the Ombudsman and they have also passed the award against the complainants on the flimsy ground, vide order dated 31.05.2022. The repudiation letter dated 05.02.2022 and order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman are illegal, null and void, ab-initio and not binding upon  the rights of the complainants. The reason given by the OP and Insurance Ombudsman is not sustainable because the OP had insisted them to supply the previous treatment record of late Shri Raman Kumar, whereas, it was told to them that late Shri Raman Kumar had never admitted in the hospital for such disease in the past and he went for the treatment of Dengue and all the complications occurred during treatment.

 3.            It is further averred that there is exclusion clause i.e. first year exclusion waived for pre-existing disease and first two year exclusion also been waived and covered under the policy. Thus, it is clear that patient never suffered from Dengue or other disease on the previous occasion, rather the same was diagnosed during admission in hospital even then, it is covered under the policy. Thus, the repudiation letter issued by the OP is illegal and based on surmises and conjectures.  Even Insurance Ombudsman while deciding the claim of the complainants has gone into technicalities that there are grave discrepancies between his issued certificate, discharge summary and ICU progress sheet notes of the hospital. They further observed in the award that on one hand, undated certificate issued by the treating Dr.Sahil Arora states that diabetes is one of the recent origin, whereas, on the other hand discharge summary issued and signed by the same doctor shows the patient was a known case of diabetes and chronic alcoholic in addition to the hypertension. Thus, ignored the certificate/clarification issued by the treating doctor. The OP has not repudiated the claim on the basis of discrepancies or on account of diabetes, alcoholic history rather they have repudiated the claim on the illegal demand of previous treatment record, which remained never in existence.  Due to this act and conduct of OP, complainants have suffered mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.7,00,000/- on account of mediclaim expenses of late Shri Raman Kumar alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of submission of claim i.e. 13.12.2021 till its realization, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.1,10,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP issued Star Comprehensive Insurance Policy vide policy no.P/211112/01/2021/017014 for the period 20.02.2021 to 19.02.2022, covering risk of Mr. Raman Kumar-self (PED-Hypertension and its complications) and Mrs. Anita Gupta-spouse (PED-Hypertension and its complications) for the floater sum insured of Rs.15,00,000/-. The terms and conditions of the policy were explained to the complainant at the time of proposing policy.  It is further pleaded that the claim of the complainant was reported on the abovesaid policy, vide claim no.CIR/2022/211112/3599111. The insured reported a claim in the 5^th year of the medical insurance policy. It is the 1^st year with Star Insurance.  As per the claim form, the insured claim for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards of reimbursement of medical expenses. The insured Mr. Raman kumar, 63 years/Male, was hospitalized at Amritdhara, Hospita-ITI Chowk, Kunjpura Road, Karnal, Haryana for the period during 10.11.2021 to 30.11.2021. As per the discharge summary, the insured person was diagnosed with acute febrile illness/NSIAG Positive/Septeic Shock/ Diabetes/Right Lower Zone Consolidation/Anaemia/Thrombocytopenia, Acute Kidney Injury/Transaminitis/Mods. The insured submitted claim documents for reimbursement of medical expenses and subsequently approached for reconsideration of the claim. On scrutiny of the claim documents, a query was raised, vide letter dated 18.01.2022 to submit the following documents:-

1. Letter from the treating doctor stating since when insured was first diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus, Medical Renal Disease and Liver disease-clarify previous treatment records.
2. Original individual payment receipt towards the final bill.
3. OPD consultation papers prior to admission.
4. First and all consultation papers towards Diabetes Mellitus, Medical Renal Disease and Liver Disease.
5. All past admission records, medical records.

 

        The above documents requested vide letter dated 18.01.2022 was not submitted by the insured that are mandatory to process the claim. Hence, the claim was repudiated as per condition no.2 of the policy and communicated to the insured, vide letters dated 05.02.2022 and 26.02.2022 respectively. As per condition no.2 of the policy, the insured person/s shall obtain and furnish the company with all original bills, receipts and other documents upon which a claim is based and shall also give the company such additional information and assistance as the company may require in dealing with claim.” Moreover, as per doctor’s opinion, there are also discrepancies noted which are as follows:

.       As per the final bill, it shows advance received as Rs.7,00,000/- and paid/adjust as Rs.92,976/-.

.       As per the cash receipt dated 03.12.2021, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid through cheque.

.       As per cash receipt dated 14.11.2021, an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid through credit card.

.       Then, the insured was admitted in HDU and not in a ward. During the last 2 days of admission, the vitals were stable yet the insured was kept in HDU only and not brought to the normal ward.

.       As per the ICP dated 10.11.2021, the diagnosis of the insured patient was mentioned as Right side lumbar region but the same was not mentioned in the discharge summary.

 

Hence, claim of complainants was rightly repudiated by the OP. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

 5.            Parties then led their respective evidence.

 6.            Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copies of insurance policies of National Insurance Company Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 for the period from 20.02.2017 to 19.02.2021, copy of insurance policy of Star Health for the period from 20.02.2021 to 19.02.2022 Ex.C5, copy of insurance policy of Star Health for the period from 20.02.2022 to 19.02.2023 Ex.C6, copy of discharge summary Ex.C7, copy of bill dated 30.11.2021 Ex.C8, claim form dated 13.12.2021 Ex.C9, copy of letter dated 18.01.2022 Ex.C10, copy of reply to the letter dated 18.01.2022 Ex.C11, copies of cash bill receipts dated 14.11.2021 and 03.12.2021 Ex.C12 and Ex.C13, copy of text report Ex.C14, copy of repudiation letter dated 05.02.2022 Ex.C15, copy of email dated 05.02.2022 Ex.C16, copy of reply of email dated 14.02.2022 Ex.C17, acknowledgement receipt Ex.C18, copy of complaint moved before Insurance Ombudsman Ex.C19, copy of order dated 31.05.2022 passed by Insurance Ombudsman Ex.C20 and closed the evidence on 11.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sumit Kumar Sharma Ex.OPW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP1, copy of terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP2 copy of proposal form Ex.OP3, copy of portability form Ex.OP4, copy of claim form Ex.OP5, copy of discharge summary Ex.OP6, copy of query letter dated 18.01.2022 Ex.OP7, copy of patient history Ex.OP8, copy of progress sheet Ex.OP9, copy of cash receipt Ex.OP10, copy of bill Ex.OP11, copy of repudiation letter dated 05.02.2022 Ex.OP12, copy of order dated 31.05.2022 passed by Insurance Ombudsman Ex.OP13, copy of claim verification report Ex.OP14, copy of bill amount Ex.OP15, copy of letter of doctor Ex.OP16 and closed the evidence on 13.06.2024 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that the husband of complainant no.1 Raman Kumar (since deceased) purchased a Health Insurance Policy from the OP for the sum insured of Rs.15,00,000/- under the portability scheme. At the time of ported the policy, the pre-existing disease were covered by the OP. During the subsistence of the policy, Raman Kumar had taken the treatment from Amritdhara Hospital, Karnal and spent of Rs.7,00,000/-.  Insured (deceased) lodged a claim with the OP for reimbursement of the said amount and submitted all the required documents to settle the claim, but OP repudiated the claim of Raman Kumar on the false and frivolous ground. Raman Kumar died on 26.03.2022. Thereafter, insured filed a complaint with Insurance Ombudsman but the Insurance Ombudsman also dismissed the complaint on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP issued a Star Comprehensive Insurance Policy, for the sum insured of Rs.15,00,000/- for covering insured (deceased) and his spouse. Insured lodged the claim for reimbursement. During the scrutiny of the documents, OP observed various discrepancies in the documents  and  insured has not submitted the required documents  to settle the claim and insured has also not disclosed with regard to pre-existing disease to the OP at the time of porting the policy. Thus, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated, vide letter dated 05.02.2022 and 26.02.2022 respectively by the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

 12.          Admittedly, Raman Kumar (since deceased) purchased a Star Comprehensive Insurance Policy from the OP. It is also admitted that the policy was ported from National Insurance Company to OP. It is also admitted that medical policy is without any break since 2017. It is also admitted that during the subsistence of insurance policy the insured has taken treatment from Amritdhara Hospital, Karnal and spent an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on his treatment. 

13.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP, vide repudiation letter Ex.C15/Ex.OP12 dated 05.02.2022 on the ground, which are reproduced as under:-

“We have processed the claim records relating to the above insured-patient seeking reimbursement of hospitalization expenses for treatment of Acute Febrile Illness/NSIAG Positive/Septic Shock/Septic Shock/Mods.

Inspite of repeated reminders on documents, which are necessary to process your claim. We note that you have not furnished the required documents and details. In the absence of the above document/details we are not able to further process your claim.

As per condition no.2 of the above policy, the insured person has to submit all the required documents and details.

We, therefore, regret to inform you that for the reasons stated above, we are unable to settled your claim under the above policy and we hereby repudiate your claim.”

 

 14.          The claim of the complainants has been repudiated by the OP on the abovesaid ground. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OP but OP has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. OP has failed to show, late Shri Raman Kumar had taken any treatment from any hospital before porting the policy. The OP further alleged that insured has not submitted the medical records with regard to first diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus, Medical Renal Disease and Liver Disease and all past admission records, medical records etc. There is nothing on the file to prove that insured was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus and was under treatment prior to port the policy. Hence, question for submitting the alleged treatment record does not arise at all.  Moreover, it is also unbelievable an insured whose personal interest is involved for such amount why he will not supply the documents to the insurance company for getting his claim amount and will indulge himself in unwanted litigations.

15.           Further, for the sake of arguments, if it be presumed that the deceased was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus at the time of obtaining the insurance policy, in that case also the claim of the complainants cannot be repudiated on the said ground, because Hypertension, diabetes, occasional pain, cold, headache, arthritis and the like in the body are normal wear and tear of modern day life which is full of tension. In this regard, we are also fortified from the observations of the Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi, titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Sudha Jain 2007 (2) CLT 423, in which Hon’ble State Commission has drawn conclusion in para 9 of the order and the relevant clause is 9 (iii), is reproduced as under:-

“9(iii) Malaise of hypertension, diabetes occasional pain, cold, headache, arthritis and the like in the body are normal wear and tear of modern day life which is full of tension at the place of work, in and out of the house and are controllable on day-to-day basis by standard medication and cannot be used as concealment of pre-existing disease for repudiation of the insurance claim unless an insured in the near proximity of taking of the policy is hospitalized or operated upon for the treatment of these diseases or any other disease.” Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and law laid down by the Hon’ble Superior Fora in the above referred cases, we are of the view that OPs were not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and are thus liable to pay the amount which the complainant had incurred on his treatment”.

16.           OP has also alleged that there are many discrepancies in the medical bills submitted by the insured. It was the duty of the OP, to verify the record from the hospital from where the insured has taken the treatment as alleged by the OP in its pleading. In this regard, we relied upon authorities titled as Sucha Singh Vs. Head Brach Office, HDFC Life and Another 2022 CJ 901 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission held that death due to heart attack-claim repudiated on ground of pre-existing ailment-complaint dismissed by State Commission-Insurance Company cannot travel beyond grounds mentioned in repudiation letter-When policy has been revived, it revives from date when it was originally issued-Insurance Company had failed to prove that insured had concealed his medical conditions on the date when he took policy-There is nothing on record to show that deceased was suffering from chronic alcoholic condition and was suffering with chronic liver disease and that he submitted fake documents at the time of obtaining original policy-State Commission had adopted wrong approach while rejecting complaint-Respondent shall pay to complainant assured amount alongwith 9% interest. Further, in case titled as Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Kaushik (since deceased) 2021 CJ 956 (NC) Hon’ble National Commission held that Mediclaim-Family Care First Plan (Medical Policy)- Surgery for total hip replacement- Non-settlement of claim by Insurance Company on ground of pre-existing condition-Complaint allowed by Fora below-Averments made by OP were not supported by documentary evidence-OP relied on treatment record relating to past history of insured, which were neither verified no supported by proper evidence-In absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that insured was having any past history-Petitioners have failed to point any illegality or irregularity in order passed by State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of Revision-Revision Petition dismissed. Further in case titled as SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshiben Naginbhai Chauhan and others 2020 CJ 110 (NC) Hon’ble National Commission held that Insurance-SBI Home Loan Master Policy-Repudiation of death claim on ground of concealment of pre-existing disease-Complaint allowed by fora below-Both District Forum and State Commission had reached to conclusion after going through all documents that medical papers have not been properly proved since neither doctor has been duly examined nor his affidavit has been furnished-National Commission is not expected and required to re-appreciate and re-assess evidences-where on the basis of evidences Fora below have reached to a conclusion which is a possible conclusion, then such conclusion need not be disturbed in Revision Petition-Revision petition dismissed. Further in case titled as Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 others Versus Kanduru Gangadhara Rao in Revision Petition no.1054 of 2020 Hon’ble National Commission held that Insurance Law-concealment of disease-Death claim repudiated by insurer on ground that life assured suppressed her health condition of her taking treatment for  placed reliance on the treatment record, ‘Chronic non-specific cervicitis’ prior to obtaining the policy-Hence this complaint-Held, insurance company placed reliance on treatment record, which was a mere photocopy and not certified. The Doctor who treated the Life Assured was also not examined nor was his affidavit filed by the insurance company. Also, insurance company failed to satisfy this Commission that there was any co-relation between death of the Life Assured and the suppression of ailment "Chronic non-specific cervicitis". Complaint allowed.

17.           The insured had got ported the insurance policy with the OP from National Insurance Company and OP issued the fresh policy Ex.C5 dated 20.02.2021. There is no break in the medical insurance policy issued by the National Insurance Company Limited, prior to portal of the same in the OP company.

18.           The meaning of portability defined by the IRDA vide its circular Reference No. IRDA/HLT/MISC/CIR/209/09/2011) is as under:-

Portability:  Portability means the right accorded to an individual health insurance policyholder (including family cover) to transfer the credit gained by the insured for pre-existing conditions and time bound exclusions if the policyholder chooses to switch from one insurer to another insurer or from one plan to another plan of the same insurer, provided the previous policy has been maintained without any break.                 

19.           We fortified with the observation of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mrs. Rubi Chandra Dutta Versus M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 3 scale 654, decided on 16.12.2016 wherein it is held that “It was 2 years before switching over the policy with the OPs. Therefore, once portability scheme was accepted by OPs then they had no right to decline the claim upto the amount of sum assured of previous insurance policy in case it was within the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy with New India Assurance Company was continuing since 2001 and counsel for OPS was unable to pin point how the claim to the extent of Rs.1,30,000/- allowed by the District Forum was not payable under the policy. Clause 1 of the policy speaks that under portability right accorded to an individual health insurance policy holder to transfer the credit gained by the insured for pre-existing conditions and time bound exclusions if the policy holder chooses to switch from the one insurer to another insurer or from one plan to another plan. Under that scheme whatever has been gained by the insured under the policy insured by the previous insured will be gained by the insured under the portability scheme. Therefore, we do not agree with the plea raised by the OPs. Even otherwise, the policy was continue one since 2001. In the said policy OP itself waived of the pre-existing disease. Hence, the plea taken by the OP regarding pre-exist medical history, is having no force at all. 

20.           As per insurance policy Ex.C5, the date of birth of insured is 03.01.1958  and policy in question ported on 20.02.2021. Thus, at that time the age of complainant was approximately 61 years. Hence, it was the duty of the OP to get the medical examination of the deceased life assured as per the instructions issued by Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority of India (IRDAI). In this regard, we place reliance upon case titled as  National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Harbirinder Singh appeal no.220 of 2016 decided on 30.09.2016, wherein Hon’ble State Commission U.T. Chandigarh has held that if the complainant and his wife both are older than 45 years of age but there is nothing on record to show that before insurance policy was issued to them, the appellants got them medically examined, which as per instructions issued by Insurance Regularly & Development Authority of India (IRDAI) is must in such like cases. Similarly, view was taken by Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission in case of M/s Max Bupa Health Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Walia, appeal no.191 of 2016 decided on 18.08.2016  and held that if contrary to the instructions issued by IRDAI, an insured above the age of 45 years, was not put to through medical examination, claim raised after issuance of insurance of policy cannot be rejected on account of non-disclosure of the fact of pre-existing disease when policy was obtained.

21.           Moreover, nowadays, it has become the routine practice of the insurance companies to reject the genuine claim on minor technicality. Thus, the denial of the claim of complainant is arbitrary and unjustified. In this regard, we place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy.”

 

22.           Keeping in view, the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that act of the OP while repudiating the claim of the complainants amounts to deficiency, which is otherwise proved genuine one. 

23.           The insured (since deceased) had spent an amount of Rs.7,00,000 /- on his treatment and in this regard complainants have submitted the medical bill Ex.C8, the said bill amount neither denied nor rebutted by the OP. The sum assured under the policy is Rs.15,00,000/-.  Hence, the complainants being legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for the said amount alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain, agony harassment and litigation expenses etc.

24.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.7,00,000/- (Rs.seven lakhs only) to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 05.02.2022 till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 11,000/- towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 11.11.2024   

                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Neeru Agarwal)         (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                   Member                          Member