Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 09/11/2009 passed in consumer complaint No.225/2008, Mr.Prakash Baburao Kharde V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. whereby consumer complaint stood dismissed. Therefore, original complainant has filed this appeal. It is the case of the complainant that he is covered by Doctors Protection Shield Policy issued by original O.P./Insurance Company. When said policy was in force on 28/11/2007 had taken medical treatment during period 28/11/2007 to 10/12/2007 at the cost of Rs.3,25,000/-. Insurance Claim was accordingly made. However, same stood repudiated on the ground, “we are closing your claim file on account of following reason :- In year 2006-2007 due to dishonour of cheque there was a gap of 10 days. Hence, the policy is as fresh hence under clause 4.1 as present disease is complication of HTN & DM.” Forum below while passing the impugned order opined that during the relevant period there was no policy cover in existence and dismissed the complaint. We heard Mr.V.B. Nashikkar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.R.P. Bafna, Advocate for the respondent. Both the parties wanted to file and supply documents which were not before the Forum below. We however find that the policy was very much in existence when the particular event had occurred. It is only the case of the Insurance Company that under the issued policy they treated as new policy since they issued it after gap of 10 days. The particular exemption clause 4.1 is attracted and therefore, claim was rejected. The policy document on record is only cover note and not the entire policy document. Therefore, what clause No.4.1 was a part of Insurance Policy issued is not made clear from the record. At this stage, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company wanted to supply those documents, so also the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant also wanted to place on record some documents to throw light on the terms and conditions of the Doctors Protection Shield Policy and Cumulative Bonus of 15% given in order to press his further argument that it is a continuous policy and not a fresh one. Since both parties wanted to adduce something which is not part of record on Forum below, and taking into consideration the wrong footing on the basis of which the Forum below decided this consumer dispute, we find it better to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to facilitate both the parties to lead additional evidence including amendment of the respective pleading, if necessary, and it would meet ends of justice and then dispute could be settled according to the law. Both parties also conceded to this course. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 09/11/2009 is quashed and set aside. 2. Consumer dispute is remitted back to the Forum below in the light of the observations made earlier in the body of the order. 3. Both parties shall appear before the Forum below on 04/10/2010 and Forum below shall give an opportunity to both the parties to amend their respective pleadings, if they so desire, and further give an opportunity to lead evidence under Section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and settle the dispute according to the law. 4. Hearing of the consumer complaint be expedited. 5. In the given circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs. 6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. | 
