CC No.986.2015

Filed on 21.05.2015

Disposed on 22.05.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF MAY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.986/2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

PRESENT:

    Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

            PRESIDENT

                 Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                          MEMBER

                                            V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainants on 21.05.2015 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- towards cost of the surgery and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:-

In the Complaint, the Complainants alleges that the Complainant No.2 had made online proposal to the Opposite Party No.1 for ‘Care’ Comprehensive Health Insurance Policy for him and his wife.  The Opposite Party No.1 conducted Health checkups of both the Complainants and on 08.02.2014 issued a Policy Certificate with policy No.10071942, policy period:27.01.2014 to 26.01.2015, and insured the Complainants for Rs.3,00,000/-and issued them client ID No.50772988 for Complainant No.1 and client ID No.50772987 for Complainant No.2.  The premium of Rs.25,933/- was paid by the Complainants.  In the said proposal Form the Complainant No.1 had herself declared diabetes as a pre-existing disease and further in the health checkups of the Complainant No.1 conducted by the insurer only diabetes had been detected as pre-existing disease and therefore in the policy certificate issued only diabetes was declared as a pre-existing disease for Complainant No.1.  Again on 04.01.2015 the Complainants got their insurance policy renewed under the same plan and scheme for a period of 27.01.2015 to 26.01.2016 after paying the premium of Rs.25,933/- to the insurer.  The Opposite Party No.1 issued a renewal policy certificate on dt.04.01.2015.  As per the terms and conditions under benefit 1 of the said policy hospitalization expenditure was covered upto Rs.3,00,000/-and if the hospital is in the list of the panel hospitals of the insurer the cashless facility is available and in other hospitals only reimbursement facility is covered.   The Complainant No.1 Smt.Renu Sinha had accidently slipped in her bathroom and had an injury in her left arm and had been diagnosed as full thickness  tear Left supra spinatus and planned for Left Rotator Cuff repair by a shoulder surgeon on 09.01.2015 at Manipal Hospitals, Airport Road, Bangalore, Karnataka 560017 and immediate surgery was required.  The Complainant No.1 decided to get her surgery conducted in the said hospital as it was in the panel list of Opposite Party No.1 and the surgery was decided to be conducted on 16.01.2015.  All the pre-obligations before hospitalization were complied with by the Complainants and the said Hospital on 14.01.2015 sought for the preauthorization approval from Opposite Party No.1. Further simultaneously the Complainant No.1 was undergoing through pre-surgery tests conducted by the Hospital while the insurance approval was awaited.  During this period pre-Anaesthatic Evaluation was conducted and accordingly pre-Anaesthatic Evaluation form was filled.  It is to be noted that meanwhile at this point of time on 14.01.2015 some enquiry was conducted on Complainant No.1 by the Opposite Parties in the hospital wherein Complainant No.2 on behalf of Complainant No.1 declared in an inquiry form that Complainant No.1 is suffering from diabetes from “1 Yr January 2014” inquiry form and there are 6 it was declared that she is suffering from hypertension for “8+months” but he has also written-“not such” meaning thereby she is neither a chronic patient nor a regular patient of hypertension nor she is suffering from any kind of ailment because of this hypertension.  But the Opposite Party No.1 by letters dt.15.01.2015 addressed to the said Manipal Hospital declined the preauthorization request made by the Hospital on a flimsy and unjustified ground, “the patient is the known case of Hypertension since one year and there is discrepancy in Medical documents in duration of Hypertension and diabetes”.  As a result the surgery had been postponed leaving an old patient i.e., Complainant No.1 herein with her sufferings, grievous pain and agony.  That the consulting doctor Mr.Hemant K.Kalyan also by his letter dt.16.01.2015 addressed to the Opposite Parties suggested “This is injustice to the patient because her medical problem for which she is seeking insurance help is in no way related to Hypertension and is not a complication of this disease”.  But they did not pay any heed towards the doctor’s suggestion also. Even after several requests and conversations made by the Complainants also they rejected the claim of cashless facility.  Not only this on receiving legal Notice also they did not change their decision.  As per the terms and conditions Opposite Party No.1 had promised to approve cashless benefit if the Hospital is in their panel list.  So despite being genuine case of approving cashless facility their denial to approve the cashless facility on such false and fabricated grounds of diabetes and hypertension amounts to deficiency of service on their part.  As the diabetes was already declared by the Complainant No.1 as a pre-existing disease at the time of taking Insurance Policy and also as Hypertension is neither a pre-existing disease nor it is any way related to the injury suffered by the Complainant No.1 so denial of insurance claim by the Opposite Party.  On the above said grounds shows that from the very beginning they had malafide intention.  Since the date of postponement of the surgery the Complainant No.2 the husband of Complainant No.1 did several conversations on the toll free number of Opposite Party No.1 and also did several correspondence and reminders with under noted levels for reconsidering to provide cashless benefit.

3. Initially the Opposite Parties were reluctant to respond properly and after so many conversations they wrote that cashless is rejected and they asked to file reimbursement.  Some important conversations.   The Complainant No.2 by letter dt.16.01.2015 requested the Manger-Claim team to reconsider to approve the cashless benefit claim.  In this request letter, the Complainant No.2 submitted that Hypertension is not a pre-existing disease in respect of the insurance claim sought and also requested the Opposite Parties to refer the health check-up report submitted by their medical team before issuing the insurance policy to the Complainants.  In response to this the Opposite Parties had given a reference number via email dt.17.01.2015 and assured for the redressal of the complaint earliest but for three days no positive response.  The Complainant on 20.01.2015 wrote a letter to the Manager-Grievance Redressal of the Opposite Party No.1 that the complaint is not of normal nature rather it concerns with the life and health of the insured patient. He also conveyed that he does not have money to bear the cost of surgery and the position of ailment is detoriating day by day and the patient is running under severe pain and he is helplessly waiting for the positive response of the Opposite Party.  Thus he requested to redress the issue in return.  The Complainant No.2 sent a reminder email on 21.01.2015.  The Complainants received a call from Hyderabad Customer Care declining he cashless request on the issue of hypertension so he again wrote a request letter dt.22.01.2015 to the Head-Customer Care/Grievance Redressal reiterating all the aforesaid facts and his claim of cashless benefit.  Having received with no response he again sent a request email on 29.01.2015 to Customer Head-Grievance Redressal referring to his previous complaint, requested to review the issue and approve preauthorization by return of mail.  In response to all the aforesaid efforts of the Complainants the Opposite Parties sent a letter dt.30.01.2015 whereby they denied the cashless benefit again and asked the Complainants to file the re-imbursement claim.  That disappointed with the aforesaid decision of the Complainant No.2 again on 18.02.2015 wrote to Director Services i.e., Opposite Party No.2 and conveyed all the aforesaid scenario and conversations.  Further regarding hypertension he clearly mentioned.  Denying the cashless facility provided in the policy is illegal so rejection of claim illegally has put the patient in distress and may tantamount fatal.  Denying cashless benefit and assuring to consider the re-imbursement is illegal and again a false assurance.  It is nothing but dragging the patient to fatality and thus requested to revert he previous irregular decision.  The Opposite Parties are adamant to neither listen anything nor to change their illegal and irregular decision and finally by letter dt.20.02.2015 the Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the Complainants.   The Complainants served Legal Notice dt.07.04.2015 upon both the Opposite Parties which were received by them on 15.04.2015 only and they did not bother to reply it in urgent in view of the seriousness of the condition of the patient/ the Complainant No.1 rather again the Opposite Parties via their reply letter dt.30.04.2015 rejected the cashless claim.  Hence this complaint. 

4. In response to the notice, the Opposite Parties put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version.  In their version pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable.  The Complainant has not yet undergone treatment, and has not filed a reimbursement claim with the answering respondent.  Since, no loss has been suffered by the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation, as the principle of indemnity does not apply.  The complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law.  The complaint is not maintainable in law nor on facts.  The Complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands.   There has been no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The complaint lacks a cause of action.  The complaint is based on mere surmises and conjectures. The Complainants have approached the Opposite Party to obtain the Health Insurance Policy covering both the 1^st and 2^nd Complainant and have submitted the Proposal Form to obtain the insurance policy through online.   Upon their instruction the Opposite Party has provided a general brief about the health policy.  The Opposite Party had precisely explained the standard terms and conditions and key features of the Opposite Party insurance Company.  The Proposal Form was received through online which was duly filled by the Complainant after going through the “Key Feature Documents” and understanding the scope, meaning and contents of the Proposal Form.  A policy of Insurance is a policy of utmost good faith.  Upon receiving a Proposal Form and the Medical Examination Report of the Complainant, a Mediclaim Health Insurance Policy was issue vide policy bearing Number 10071942 on 27.01.2014 covering both the 1^st and 2^nd Complainant and the sum assured was Rs.3,00,000/-.   The policy was issued based on the declarations provided by the Complainant in his Proposal Form and his Medical Examination Report.   While taking the policy, the Complainants have furnished the details of their health condition in the Proposal Form as below:

Details of the Persons be Insured.

Additional Details

A.Does any person(s) to be insured has any pe-existing diseases?

B.Does any person(s) to be insured been diagnosed/hospitalized for any illness/injury during the last 48 months ?

C.Have any of the person(s) to be insured ever filed a claim with their current/previous insurer ?

D.Has any proposal for Health Insurance been declined, cancelled or charged a higher premium?

E.Is any of the person(s) to be insured, already Covered under any other Health Insurance Policy of Religere Health Insurance ?

Also, the Pre-Policy Medical Test Report under the head of “Cardiovascular & Circulatory System”, the following mis-declaration has been made:

Please select if you have suffered from any of the following conditions:

High Blood Pressure: No

Only diabetes has been marked as “Yes”, which has been duly endorsed in the Policy as a Pre-Existing Disease. 

Based on the above said declaration provided in the Proposal Form, this Opposite Party has issued the policy covering the hospitalization expenses of both the 1^st and the 2^nd Complainant.  On 14.01.2015, the Complainant has requested the Opposite Party for cashless facility for the treatment at Manipal Hospital and has submitted the Pre-authorization request form.  Ongoing through the Medical records, it is observed that the Complainant was suffering from Hypertension since more than one year and in view of the same, the Opposite Party has denied the cashless facility vide letter dt.15.01.2015 on the basis of non-disclosure of material fact at the time of proposal.  It is clearly mentioned in the medical records that “the patient is known case of Hypertension since one year and thee was a discrepancy in the medical documents in duration of Hypertension and Diabetes” and the Opposite Party cashless facility, since liability of the Opposite Party cannot be taken at that juncture.  As per the Pre-Anesthetic Evaluation Form of Manipal Hospital dt.14.01.2015, it was found that the patient is a known case of Hypertension for past 1 year and is on medication for the same.   However the said fact was never disclosed by the insured at the time of taking the policy and hence the as per “Clause 6.1” of the policy terms and conditions, the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount to the insured, since the policy was obtained by mis-representing the material facts.  It is also to be noted that denial of Authorization for cashless facility does not prevent the Complainant from taking treatment or claiming for reimbursement.  The same has clearly been mentioned on the cashless facility denial letter. In view of the above said clause, the Opposite Party is not liable to make any payment if the policy is obtained by mis-representing e material facts and in the case on hand, the medical documents indicates that the Complainant is suffering from Hypertension for more than one year and was on medication and the same was not disclosed while taking the policy.   Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

5. The 2^nd Complainant, Sri.Arun Kumar Sinha has been filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party, the affidavit of one Sri.Ramnique Sachar has been filed.    Heard the arguments of both parties.

6.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

7.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Negative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

8.   POINT NO.1:- It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant had taken Floter Insurance Policy from Opposite Party No.1.  The Complainant No.2 had made online proposal to the Opposite Party No.1 for ‘Care’ Comprehensive Health Insurance Policy for him and his wife.  The Opposite Party No.1 conducted Health checkups of both the Complainants and on 08.02.2014 issued a Policy Certificate with policy No.10071942, Care cover Floter Policy period:27.01.2014 to 26.01.2015, and insured the Complainants for Rs.3,00,000/-and issued them client ID No.50772988 for Complainant No.1 and client ID No.50772987 for Complainant No.2.  This fact is not denied or disputed by the Opposite Parties.

9. Further the insurance premium of Rs.25,933/- was paid by the Complainants.  It is important to note that in the said proposal form, the Complainant No.1 had herself declared diabetes as a pre-existing disease and further in the health checkups of the Complainant No.1 conducted by the insurer only diabetes had been detected as pre-existing disease and therefore in the policy certificate issued only diabetes was declared as a pre-existing disease for Complainant No.1.   Again on 04.01.2015 the Complainants got their insurance policy renewed under the same plan and scheme for a period of 27.01.2015 to 26.01.2016 after paying the premium of Rs.25,933/- to the insurer.  The Opposite Party No.1 issued a Renewal Policy Certificate on dt.04.01.2015. Even this fact is also not in dispute and denied by the Opposite Parties. 

10. As per the terms and conditions under benefit 1 of the said policy hospitalization expenditure was covered upto Rs.3,00,000/-and if the hospital is in the list of the panel hospitals of the insurer the cashless facility is available and in other hospitals only reimbursement facility is covered.   The Complainant No.1 Smt.Renu Sinha had accidently slipped in her bathroom and had an injury in her left arm and had been diagnosed as full thickness tear Left supra spinatus and planned for Left Rotator Cuff repair by a shoulder surgeon on 09.01.2015 at Manipal Hospitals, Airport Road, Bangalore, Karnataka 560017 and immediate surgery was required.  The Complainant No.1 decided to get her surgery conducted in the said hospital as it was in the panel list of Opposite Party No.1 and the surgery was decided to be conducted on 16.01.2015.  All the pre-obligations before hospitalization were complied with by the Complainants and the said Hospital on 14.01.2015 sought for the preauthorization approval from Opposite Party No.1. Further the Complainant No.1 was undergoing through pre-surgery tests conducted by the Hospital while the insurance approval was awaited.  During this period pre-Anesthetic Evaluation was conducted and accordingly pre-Anesthetic Evaluation form was filled.   At this point of time, i.e., on 14.01.2015 some enquiry was conducted on Complainant No.1 by the Opposite Parties in the hospital wherein Complainant No.2 on behalf of Complainant No.1 declared in an inquiry form that Complainant No.1 is suffering from diabetes from “1 Yr January 2014” inquiry form and there are 6 it was declared that she is suffering from hypertension for “8+months” but he has also written-“not such” meaning thereby she is neither a chronic patient nor a regular patient of hypertension nor she is suffering from any kind of ailment because of this hypertension.  But the Opposite Party No.1 by letters dt.15.01.2015 addressed to the said Manipal Hospital declined the preauthorization request made by the Hospital on a flimsy and unjustified ground, “the patient is the known case of Hypertension since one year and there is discrepancy in Medical documents in duration of Hypertension and diabetes”.  As a result the surgery had been postponed leaving an old patient i.e., Complainant No.1 herein with her sufferings, grievous pain and agony.  In order to substantiate this, the Complainant No.2 Sri.Arun Kumar Sinha, in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced the pre-Anesthetic Evaluation Form.  This pre-Anesthetic Evaluation form is prepared by Dr.N.Prabhkar of Manipal Hospital on 14.01.2015 it clearly reveals that the Complainant is having a B.P of 130/61 since one year but this fact is not revealed by the Complainant while taking the policy in their Proposal Form.  In the said Proposal Form, the Complainant No.1 had herself declared diabetes as a pre-existing disease but not mentioned about the hypertension. 

11. Due to this reason only the Opposite Party rejected the cashless facility since the Complainant surprise the fact of existing of hypertension.  

12. Nodoubt, as the evidence placed by the Complainants, the Complainant No.1 due to slipped in her bathroom and she had full thickness tear Left supra spinatus.  After conducting test in the Manipal Hospital Dr.Sushal Shantha Kumar requesting the Complainants to admit in the Hospital for Arthroscopic Left Rotator cuff repair.

13. On the ground that cashless facility cannot be approved as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  On the ground that patient is known case of hyper since one year and there is disturbance in the medical documents.  This evidence produced by the Complainant itself is very clear, the reason of refusing the cashless facility is due to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy but not on the flimsy ground as submitted by the Complainants.

14. The learned Counsel for the Complainants argued that the 1^st Complainant Smt.Renu Sinha had accidently slipped and suffered a severe injury in her left arm and immediate surgery was required.  And the surgery was decided to be conducted on 15.01.2015 in the Manipal Hospital.  All the pre-obligations before hospitalization were complied with by the Complainants and the said Hospital on dt.14.01.2015 sought or the preauthorization approval from Opposite Party No.1.  The Complainant No.1 was undergone through pre-surgery tests conducted by the Hospital while the insurance approval was awaited.  During this time, pre-Anesthetic Evaluation was conducted and thereby she was asked regarding any medication for diabetes and hypertension, for which she was taking regular medicines for diabetes since around 8-9 months or one year back and earlier it was controlled by walking and controlled diet and for hypertension she conveyed that around that time only for the first time she had taken some medicines for hypertension also for some days and it became normal.  Again afterwards whenever she used to go for her regular diabetes checkups she checks her hypertension also.  So once or twice again she had taken medicine for that, but she did not need any continuous medication for that as it was neither chronic nor continuous in nature.  And accordingly pre-anesthetic Evaluation form was filled.   Meanwhile at this point of time some enquiry was conducted on Complainant No.1 by the Opposite Parties in the hospital wherein Complainant No.2 on behalf of Complainant No.1 declared in an inquiry form that Complainant No.1 is suffering from diabetes from “1 Yr +” in para 5 of the inquiry form and in para 6 it was declared that she is suffering from hypertension for “8+ months” but he has also written “not such” meaning.  But the Opposite Parties by letter dt.15.01.2015 declined the preauthorization request made by the Hospital on a flimsy and unjustified ground.  In support of his argument, he relied upon decision reported in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited V/s Valsa Jose, CPJ 2012-4-839.   On careful perusal of the decision, the law laid down in the decision is not applicable to the present case.   Since in the above case, the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited repudiate the claim of the Valsa Jose whereas in the present case it is not so, they rejected the prayer of cashless benefit.  In that event, the Complainant No.1 ought to have undergone surgery and after undergoing surgery can submit the claim form for reimbursement but it is not done in this present case, thereby the law laid down in the said decision is not applicable.  Further he has also relied upon decision reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others V/s Smt.Asha Goel and another.  The law laid down in the said decision is not applicable to the present case.  Since in the present case also Life Insurance of India repudiate the claim of the Complainant No.1 but it is not do so in the present case and he has also another decision reported in B.N.Kripal V/s United India Insurance and another, the law laid down was in the present case is not applicable to the present case and also he relied upon decision reported in New India Assurance Company Limited V/s Rakesh Kumar  III (2014) CPJ 340 (NC) even the law laid down in the said decision is not applicable.  Therefore, the argument put forth by the learned Counsel for the Complainant cannot be acceptable that the Opposite Parties rejected the cashless benefit on a flimsy ground.  But on the other hand, as looking into the facts and material evidence produced by the Complainants clearly reveals that the Complainants violated the terms and conditions of the policy by suppressing the pre-existing decease is hypertension.  For that reason only the Opposite Parties rejected the cashless benefit.  In that event the Complainants ought to go surgery, if it is so relevant and they can claim reimbursement but it is not do so, this also clearly shows that there is no such surgery for the Complainants otherwise the Complainants ought to have gone surgery as pleaded in the complaint, thereby rejection of cashless benefit is in accordance with procedure but not violating the procedure.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.    Hence, this point is held in the Negative.

15. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 22^nd day of May 2017)

     MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.Arun Kumar Sinha, who being 2^nd Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Original print of online Proposal Form filled by 2^nd Complainant
2. Original Policy Certificate dt.08.02.2014
3. Original Terms and condition of the Insurance Policy
4. Original Renewed policy Certificate dt.04.01.2015.
5. Original Pre-Anesthetic Evaluation Form dt.14.01.2015
6. Original document showing cost of Hospitalization in Manipal Hospital.
7. Copy of Enquiry Form dt.14.01.2015 for enquiry conducted by insurer in Hospital
8. Copy of letter dt.15.01.2015 by Opposite Party to the Manipal Hospitals. 
9. Copy of the surgery postponement letter dt.16.01.2015 by Manipal Hospitals.
10. Original Surgery postponement letter dt.16.01.2015 by Dr.Hemant K. Kalyan to the Opposite Party.
11. Copy of letter dt.16.01.2015 by the Complainant No.2 to Manager-Claim Team
12. Original Print of email dt.16.01.2015 by Manipal Hospital to the 2^nd Complainant along with the original print/hard copy of the relevant attachment i.e. letter dt.16.01.2015 by Dr.Hemant K.Kalyan to the Opposite Party. 
13. Original print of mail conversations of dt.15.01.2015 and 17.01.2015 between Ganesan Balasubramanian and Complainant No.2 along with the original print/hard copy of the relevant attachments in the mails which are 1.Enquiry Form dt.14.01.2015 for enquiry conducted by insurer in hospital and 2. Complaint’s letter dt.16.01.2015 to Manager Claim Team.
14. Original Print of Response mail dt.17.01.2015 by Opposite Party. Original print of Letter dt.20.01.2015 by the Complainant No.2 to Manager-Grievance Redressal and original print of reminder mail dt.21.01.2015 by the 2^nd Complainant.
15. Original print of response email letter dt.27.01.2015 by Opposite Party to the 2^nd Complainant along with the hard copy of the attachment in the mail which complaint letter dt.22.01.2015 by the 2^nd Complainant to the Head-Customer Care/Grievance Redressal.
16. Original print of request mail dt.29.01.2015 to Customer Head Grievance Redressal.
17. Original print of Letter dt.30.01.2015 by Opposite Parties to the 2^nd Complainant.
18. Original print of email letter dt.19.02.2015 by the Complainant No.2 to Opposite Party along with the original print of relevant attachment i.e. letter dt.18.02.2015 by the Complainant No.2 to Opposite Party No.2.
19. Original letter dt.20.02.2015 by Opposite Parties to the Complainants.
20. Copy of Legal Notice dt.07.04.2015 to Opposite Party No.1 and 2.
21. Original Postal receipt for Legal notice sent to the Opposite Party No.2
22. Original Letter dt.30.04.2015 by the Opposite Party No.1 in replying the Legal Notice.
23. Original print of the email dt.21.12.2015 by Opposite Parties to the 2^nd Complainant for the renewal of their policy along with the original hard copy of the attachment in the mail.
24. Original print of reminder message sent by Opposite Party on the mobile (Mobile No.7259323314) of the Complainant of the renewal of policy.
25. Original print of the re-reminder email dt.11.01.2016 by the Opposite Party for the renewal of policy.
26. Certificate under sec 65B of the Evidence Act.
27. Copy of document by Manipal Hospital showing cost of Hospitalization.
28. General Power of Attorney dt.18.12.2015 executed by the Complainant No.1 in favour of the Complainant No.2 to represent her case.
29. Original print of four e-mail conversations of dt.23.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 between Vipin Kumar Singh of the Religare Health Insurance Company Limited and the Complainant No.2 regarding renewal of the policy.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

1. Sri.Ramnique Sachar, Manager-Legal of the Opposite Party Company.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

–NIL-

     MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT