In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.

Case No. CC/168/2017.

Date of filing: 07/08/2017.                     Date of Final Order: 22/09/2023.

Debasis Koley,

s/o Mritunjoy Koley,

r/o Memari Sukantanagar,

ward no. 07, P.O. Memari, Dist. Burdwan.                                        ……complainant

  -vs 

1. The Branch Manager,

Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. Claim Department

Serampore Branch, no. 129, 1^st Floor N.S. Avenue Serampore,

Dist. Hooghly, West Bengal- 712201.

2. Dr. Sanjay Singh,

Follow Roayl Australian College of Surgeon Director of Cardiac Surgery,

Reg no. 076906 attached with Bellevue Clinic D.R.U.N.

Brahmachari Street, (formerly Louden Street), Kolkata-17,

Having his chamber at BL-8, Sector 2, Salt Lake,Kolkata 700091.

3. Dr. Arindam Maitra,

Interventional cardiologist attached to Bellevue Clinic,

9, Dr. U.N. Bramhachari Street, (formerly Louden Street), Kolkata-17,

Having its chamber at Nigtingale Hospital 11,

Shakespear Sarani, Kolkata. 700071.

4. Executive Officer Believue Clinic

9,Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Street, (formerly Loudon Street) Kolkata-700017.

5. Mr. Barun Chandra Dutta,

authorized agent of Medical Insurance Policy of Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.

Branch office-129, 1^st floor N.S. Avenue Serampore,

Dist-Hooghly, West Bengal, Pin-712201.………..opposite parties

Before:            President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.

                          Member,  Debasis Bhattacharya.

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Presented by:-

Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay,  President.

Brief fact of this case:-  This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant stating that the complainant opened a family health Optime Insurance plan under the star health and Allied Insurance Company Limited bearing policy No. P/191120/01/2016/001349 issuing branch code 191120, in the branch officer of Star Health and Allied Insurance company at Serampur No.129, I Floor, N/S Avenue Serampore, Hooghly, West Bengal-712201, proposer code 4379798, proposal date 15.6.2015 receipt no.1254001404 receipt date 15.06.2015 having the total premium of Rs.8778 for the period i.e. from 15.6.2015 18:1*8:29 to Midnight of 14.6.2016 through its agent.  The scheme of the policy cover 2 Adult and 2 children, basic floater sum insured Rs.300000/-.  The complainant made the insurance policy for himself, his wife and two minor daughters.  The OP-1 Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited had given premium certificate for the purpose of deduction under section 80D Income tax (Amendment) Act, 1986 on 17.6.2015 to the complainant acknowledging the payment of total premium of Rs.8778/-. OP-3 attached to cardiology Dept. SSKM (P.G) Hospital Regd. No.-59908 treated the complainant for his decease as the complainant suffering from Acute Auterior myozawdical in farction and from 7.8.2015 and complainant had no past Medical history of hypertension which is found in his letter head on 21.9.15 and 23.12.15.  It is also found that Doctor treated the complainant on 19.8.15, 21.9.15 & 22.12.15 which is clear from his prescription.  It is clear from the copy of tax Invoice dated 8.8.2015 Bill no.S-810/15 BELLEVUECLINIC 9 and 10 Lovden Street Kol-17 the complainant paidRs.130000/- from his account for the product of Boston Scientific Make Promus Premier Stent and he was under the treatment of Dr. Moitra.  It is clear from the billno.15004379, dated 11.8.2015 that the complainant was in treatment in Belie Vue Clinic 9, Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Street, (formerly 4 Lovdon street) Kolkata-17 and cut of total claim of Rs.183566/- the complainant paid Rs.100000/- to the Belle vue clinic headed by C.E.O.P., the respondent No.4 and balance remain Rs.83566/-.  It is found from the Doctors’ Care Plan that the complainant is under the treatment at Bellevue Clinic on 8.8.15, 9.8.15 and 10.8.15 and 11.8.15.  It is also found from the final bill, bill no.15004379 is that the complainant took admission on 8.8.15,15.48 and discharge on 11.8.15 under consultant doctor here respondent -2 attached with Belle Vue Clinic.  It is from CORONARY ANGLOPLASTY REPORT OF BELLE VUECLINIC dated8.8.15 is that Dr. Maitra Interventional cardiologist was the performing doctor of the complainant, being patient and he was referring doctor Singh.

The Echocardiogram (Screening) on 9.8.15 is  done at Belle Vue clinic referred by doctor Dr. Singh by Dr. Lalit Maskara MRCP(UK). The Serology Screening Test is made of complainant by Belle Vue clinic by department of pathology on 8.8.15. The clinical Chemistry Analysis Report of complainant made on 9.8.2015 by Belle Vueclinic represented by its CEO P.tondon (op no. 4). In discharge summary of Belle Vueclinic it is found that complainant past medical history is Hypertension as per the opinion of treating doctor Dr. Sanjoy Singh which is not correct but op no. 1 rejected the claim of complainant on the fact is that complainant had pre-existing diseased of hypertension. The complainant wrote to the branch manager of Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. Serampore Branch, Claim Deptt. Hooghly on 3.12.2015 with request for reimbursement of claim denial, claim no. 126142 and also review the claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- as per his policy but the said insurance company turned down/ rejected the claim of the complainant.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party no. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in respect of his policy and to direct the op no. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for depriving the complainant to get his claim.

Defense Case:-  The opposite party No. 1 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that the complainant submitted claim for reimbursement of medical expenses which was recorded by the answering respondent vide claim number  CLI/2016/191120/0126142. Scrutiny of the medical papers described in written version.

The answering respondent wishes to submit that it issued the policy to the insured based on the declarations made in the proposal form at the time of inception of the policy for the period 15.6.2015 to 14.6.2016.  The complainant while answering to a specific question of the proposal form under medical history relating to the insured patient’s own past medical history specifically chose not to disclose the material fact that the insured has hypertension (under medication used anti hypertensive medicine Amlong 5 mg) and longstanding chronic coronary artery disease involving LAD under the past medical history section of the proposal form on page 2 under Health history and further again on page 3 refer section 4.  However, regretfully, but respectfully, the complainant deliberately failed to act in utmost good faith in the present case and is guilty of fraudulent suppression of material facts relating to his own past illness in this case.  Had the complainant disclosed the material facts including the health details to the answering op the answering respondent party might have not issued the policy at the first place covering the insured person and the complainant has never ever disclosed and declared anywhere in the proposal form while incepting the policy from 15.6.15 to 14.6.15 which amounts to non-disclosure of material facts and willful misrepresentation by the insured person and complainant and proposer.  In addition, the same falls under per exclusion no.1 of the policy, Exclusion 1 of the policy terms and conditions states “the company is not liable to make any payment in respect of expenses for treatment of the pre-existing disease until 48 months of continuous coverage has elapsed, since inception of the policy”.

The non-disclosure and willful mis-representation by the insured person in this case, clearly goes onto show that the complainant is having ulterior motives and mala-fide intention to defraud the respondent company by non disclosing material facts and willful misrepresentation to gain illegally and wrongfully by causing illegal and wrongful loss to the respondent company under the garb of alleged claim.   Hence the answering respondent was legally constrained to repudiate the alleged cashless claim of the complainant clearly citing non disclosure at the  time of policy inception and the complainant despite being aware of the policy terms and conditions including the exclusions and more specifically Exclusion 1 which is an integral part of the policy terms and conditions, has willfully misrepresented before the Id forum and has intentionally construed the policy terms and conditions for his wrongful gains by concealing all material facts about her own past medical history and as such he is guilty of misrepresentation and fraudulent suppression of material facts hence, the instant complaint merits dismissal being frivolous, vexatious and devoid of merits.

The present complaint is even otherwise not maintainable against the op as the complainant has not shown any deficiency in service and/ or arbitrary and illegal repudiation of medi claim insurance of the complainant on the part of the op. The complainant preferred a representation vide his letter dt. 3.12.2015 against the rejection letter dt. 23.11.2015 which was duly reviewed and the decision was conveyed to the complainant. The complainant has admitted that all representations made by the complainant for review of his claim before the various authorities of op no. 1 was well attended to by the op no. 1 however the same was not ruled in favour of the complainant for the reasons expatiated hereinabove of this written version. The complainant has also further admitted under objection that the complainant was at all material times aware of the decision related to his claim, taken by the op no. 1 and the complainant has admitted the same time and again in his petition under objection. Hence it is apparent that the complainant has filed this complaint veraciously and frivolously for the sole purpose of harassing the ops with the intention for getting unlawful enrichment from the ops who are dealing with public money and functioning under the guideline of IRDA controlled by the Govt. of India.

All the communications with reasons of each decision made by and on behalf of the op no. 1 was conveyed to the complainant on time hence the allegation of harassment, mental agony and deficiency in service is unfound and untenable. The op no. 1 has indeed discharged the obligations as per the policy terms and conditions unlike the complainant who had not disclosed the material facts and health details while proposing the policy. The complainant had filed earlier a complaint no. 19/2016 before the ld. DCDRF Burdwan but the same was rejected however the reason of rejection is disputed as no material has been supplied by the complainant to the ops alongwith this complaint. So, this complaint case should be rejected for the ends of justice and/ or may further be pleased to pass any such order/ orders as deem fit and proper.

The opposite party No. 3 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that the answering proforma respondent was asked to see a patient being referred by doctor on 8.8.2015 on Belle Vue clinic.  The complainant herein was referred to the doctor.  The patient was then suffering from Acute Anterior Wall Myocardial Infarction with ongoing angina and left Ventricular systolic dysfunction.  The patient and his relatives consented for coronary Angiography and followed by Angioplasty and stenting to the culprit coronary vessel and at that time his blood pressure was normal.  He followed doctor’s instruction on several occasions dated 19.8.2015, 21.9.2015, 22.12.2015 and 2.3.2015. On every occasion his Blood Pressure found to be within normal range. However, he started on Beta Blockers and ACE inhibitors post Angioplasty to improve his left vertricular dysfunction as per present  American College of Cardiology (ACC)/ American Heart Association (AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. The patient admitted to Dr. Maitra that he is a non smoker and accordingly in estimation the answering respondent found him as not Hypertensive. As it appears from the complaint that the claim against Insurance Company of the complainant has not been settled and he took support of the answering proforma respondent’s certificate as not Hypertensive to get his insurance claim released since other medical records establish that he is suffering from Hypertension which is not covered in the insurance policy claim of the patient and his claim was rejected. At the relevant point the patient did not produce any record that he used to take Amlodac 5 mg. once daily a medicine against Hypertension. Since Dr. Maitra was not aware this prescription of Amlodac, and the patient admitted that he is non smoker that the doctor did not have any option but comment that the patient is not hypertensive. However, it is made clear within four corners of the compliant that there is no allegation in any manner whatsoever against Dr. Maitra and there is no prayer or claim against Dr. Maitra. Such claim is likely to be dismissed in limini against the answering proforma opposite party.

The opposite party No. 4 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that the case under question has been filed basically against Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. for rejection of Insurance claim.  There is no allegation within the four corners of the complaint against the clinic.  The patient made all payment of their bill before the time of discharge and thereafter lodged the claim on the Insurance through TPA.   Whenever a patient is admitted an initial assessment is done by the hospital’s doctors, which is recorded by the floor resident medical officers.  There is a proforma for the same which is followed by the hospital and each and every query as answered by the patient is considered by the resident medical officer.  The clinic is made proforma respondent and there is no claim against the clinic.   The name of the clinic needs to be deleted.  The patient approached doctor the interventional cardiologist who did the procedure and requested him to give a certificate.  He did the procedure and requested him to give a certificate.  He did not inform the purpose for which he wanted the certificate from the doctor and the doctor also verified his blood pressure and found that it is normal.  The said doctor also verified his post-PTCA, Blood pressure records and found that they are normal and also on these evidences he gave the said certificate dated 21.9.2015.  The said patient again approached the doctor on 23.12.2015 and requested again for a certificate certifying also to whether there is any history of Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus or smoking.  The doctor again out of good faith gave a certificate on 23.12.2015.  Again the patient had not clarified to the doctor the purpose of asking the certificate and at the same time the doctor had also not asked the patient to give him the certificate. Inspite of collecting these two certificates dated 21.9.2015 and 23.12.2015 it appears that the claim was not settled by the insurance company.  It appears that the case is basically for non-passing of the insurance claim by the Insurance Authorities, as the documents clearly mention that the patient is hypertensive, smoker and social alcoholic.  The clinic’s records are veryclear in this regard. The clinic has nothing to do in this  matter as the clinic is transparent and records are available with the clinic and also with the patient.  Incidentally, the patient has enclosed the records after collecting the Bed Head Ticket from the clinic.  On referring to the repudiation of claim letter dated 22.12.2015 of the Insurance company, one may see that it is very clearly written in the same about the present ailment being due to long standing hypertensive heart disease.  The Insurance company has also written that although the treating doctor has written that there is no previous history of Hypertension it is clear from the statements of the insured that he is having hypertension prior to the policy inception.  Due to this, his claim was rejected.  The complaint is bad in law for misjoinder of necessary party and it is not maintainable against the clinic. 

On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the instant complaint be dismissed in limini with costs.

Issues/points for consideration

On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
4. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            The answering opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant and opposite party filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite party heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration  are  clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.

            Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties even after appearance in this case and after filing written version, have not filed any petition on the ground of nonmaitainability of this case due to the reason best known to them. Under this position this District Commission has passed the order of further hearing of this case. On this background it is also mention worthy that the opposite parties also have not filed any separate petition challenging the maintainability point, jurisdiction point and cause of action issue. The opposite parties in their written version have only pleaded the above noted points. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the op no. 1 has office at Serampore, Hooghly which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 20 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Thus, the point of jurisdiction which has been alleged by the opposite parties cannot be accepted. Moreover, u/s 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. The opposite parties also have raised the plea of limitation and in the written version it has been pointed out that this case is barred by limitation. But in this connection it is important to note that the provision of 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very important and according to the provision of Section 24A complaint case can be entertained by the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission even after expiry of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the ld. Commission that he or she has sufficient ground for not filing the case within two years. Moreover in this instant case the cause of action has been continued and thus the above noted plea of the opposite parties which has been pointed out in the written version is also not acceptable. On close examination of the pleadings of the parties it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law. It is the settled principle of law that failure of the Insurance Company to comply with the contractual obligation to release claim amount in deficiency in service. This legal principle has been laid down by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi and it is reported in 2022 (2) CPR 13 (Del).

            All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.

            The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two pints of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.

            For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the parties and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the parties of this case.

            On comparative studies of the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant with the evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite parties and on close compare of the documents filed by both parties it appears that on the following points of this case either there is admission on behalf of the both parties or the parties have not raised any dispute:

1. It is admitted fact that the complainant opened a family health Insurance Plan under the Op Insurance Company.
2. It is also admitted fact that  the said Insurance policy no. is P/191120/01/2016/001349 issuing branch code 191120.
3. There is no controversy over the issue that  the OP Insurance company has its office at N.S Avenue, Serampore, Hooghly.
4. There is no controversy over the issue that        the complainant had paid Rs.8778/- as total premium for the period 15.6.2015 to midnight of 14.6.2016.
5. It is admitted fact that the scheme of said policy covered two adult and two children and the sum insured was of Rs.300000/-
6. There is no dispute over the issue that the OP-1 Insurance company had given premium certificate for the purpose of deduction under section 80 D Income Tax Act 1986.
7. There is no dispute over the issue that the complainant became ill and he was medically treated under OP-3 of SSKM Hospital.        
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant subsequently was medically treated at Bellevue Clinic for his suffering from Acute Auterior myozawdical in fraction.
9. There is no dispute that  the complainant was admitted to Bellevue Clinic and was under the treatment of Dr. Moitra.
10. It is admitted fact that the complainant submitted bill in respect of his total claim of Rs.183566/-.
11. There is no controversy over the issue that the complainant took admission on 8.8.2015 at 15.48 Hours and discharge on 11.8.2015 in the said hospital.          
12. It is admitted fact that the OP Insurance company had not paid the total claim of the complainant.
13. There is no controversy over the issue that the OP-1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has previous history of hypertension.                                              

              Regarding the above noted admitted facts and information there is no necessity of passing any separate observation as it is the settled principle of law that fact admitted need not be proved. This legal principle has been embodied in Section 58 of the Evidence Act.

               On the background of the above noted admitted  facts and circumstances the parties of this case are differing on the point and/ or apple of discord between the parties of this case is that the complainant adopted the plea that the OP arbitrarily and whimsically repudiated the claim of complainant which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice but on the other hand the OP Insurance company pointed out that the complainant is not entitled to get the claim as he suppressed the actual truth that he had been suffering hypertension and for that reason the OP Insurance company has pointed out that the OP rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

            For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in respect of the above noted points of difference and apple of discords this District Commission after going through the evidence on record finds that the op nos. 3 and 4 in their W/V as well as in the evidence on affidavit have pointed out that the complainant was not a patient of hypertension. Relating to this part of evidence and point of contention of op nos. 3 and 4 the op no. 1 have neither produced any counter document nor filed any cogent evidence. In view of this position the point of contention adopted by the op no. 1 that the complainant is not entitled to get the claim has no leg to stand upon.

            Another important point of contention and argument raised by the ld. Advocate of the opposite party no. 1 is that the complainant concealed the factum of pre existing disease (HTN) for which he had obtained medical treatment and the complainant was suffering from HTN for a long time and the policy under dispute was the subsequent policy and the period of 48 months was not over at the time of medical treatment by the complainant and for that reason the opposite party no. 2 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Over this issue Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in appeal no. A-482/2005 disposed of on 1.8.2008 has been pleased to observe the following points:-

1. 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.
2. If insured had been even otherwise living normal and healthy life3 and attending to his duties and daily chores like any other person and is not declared as a disease person as referred above he cannot be held guilty for concealment of any disease, the medical terminology of which is even not known to an educated person unless he is hospitalized and operated upon for a particular disease in the near proximity of date of insurance policy say few days or months.
3. Disease that can be easily detected by subjecting the insured to basic tests like blood test, ECG etc. the insured is not supposed to disclose such disease because of otherwise leading a normal and healthy life and cannot be branded as diseased person.
4. Insurance Company cannot take advantage of its act of omission and commission as it is under obligation to ensure before issuing medi-claim policy whether a person is fit to be insured or not. It appears that insurance Companies don’t discharge this obligation as half of the population is suffering from such malaises and they would be left with no or very little business.

Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in the above noted appeal has also been pleased to observe that recently the Hon’ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice of Insurance Companies for rejecting the claims in respect of mediclaim policies on the ground of pre-existing disease.

Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition no. 2858 of 2017 decided on 18^th April 2018 has also been pleased to observe almost similar views/ legal principle which have been stated above.

Thus, it is crystal clear that the argument highlighted by the op no. 1 in the BNA and case laws which have been referred and described in the BNA are not applicable in this case.

All the above noted legal views of Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi and Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and the above noted discussion goes to show that the argument and point of contention adopted by opposite party no. 1 cannot be accepted.

A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that there is deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party no. 1 and the failure of the op no. 1 to comply with the contractual obligation in the matter of releasing the claim amount of the complainant of this case also amounts to deficiency in service and so the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,83,566/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this case from op no. 1.

In the result it is accordingly

ordered

that the complaint case being no. 168 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part against op no. 1 and it is dismissed against op nos. 2, 3 and 4.

It is held that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,83,566/- along with interest @ 9% per annum  from op no. 1. Opposite party no. 1 is directed to pay the said amount within 45 days from the date of this order otherwise complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law.

            In the event of nonpayment/ non compliance of the above noted direction the opposite party no. 1 is also directed to pay and/ or deposit Rs. 10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of D.C.D.R.C., Hooghly which is to be utilized for the purpose of poor litigant public.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

            The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.