Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainants Sushila Jain and Prathmesh Jain against opposite party United India Insurance Company Ltd,.Opposite B.D.O. office, G.T. Road, Sultanpur Lodhi through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant No.1 Sushila Jain is widow of Nand Kishore Jain and complainant No.2 Prathmesh Jain is son of Nand Kishore Jain. Nand Kishore ( now deceased) died on 25/10/2006 got himself insured with the opposite party Insurance Company by availing Health plus medical expenes policy/Medi Guard Policy in accordance with the provisions of Gneral Insurance Act vide insurance policy No. 200506/48/06/12/00000061 dated 24/11/2006 on payment of premium of Rs.9803/- which was valid from 2/6/2006 to 1/6/2007 and Company issued a cover note after performing of certain medical tests of the complainant and it was renewal of earlier policy. It is further alleged that on 10/10/2006 insured Nand Kishore fell ill and was taken to civil hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi and from where he was referredto CMC hospital, Ludhiana for better management and he was discharged from that hospital on 18/10/2006 in a stable state of health. . Intimation in this respect was given to opposite party Insurance Company on 11/10/2006 alongwith requisite documents as demanded by the opposite party. .<br /> Complainant No.2 was shocked to receive letter date 31/3/2008 from the opposite party rejecting the claim of Nand Kishore on the ground of pre-existing disease and gap in the present policy. This act of the opposite party Insurance Company amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part against which complainants are entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which certain preliminary objections have been raised that complainants are estopped by their acts and conduct to file the present complaint. That complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.. That liability of the Insurance Company if any is strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy. On merits factum of insurance policy taken by Nand Kishore is admitted but it is denied that said policy was renewal of earlier policy. . There was a break in this policy and the earlier policy expired on 31/5/2006 whereas present policy started on 2/6/2006. Since the insured Nand Kishore suffered attack of Asthma in the first year of purchase of policy which is not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Insurance Company.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence documents Ex.C1 to C69.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite party produced in evidence affidavit Ex.OPA and documents Ex.OP1 to OP6.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. The present Medi Guard policy was a renewal of earlier policy of deceased Nand Kishore Jain alongwith complainant No.1. The couple had been availing the said policy regularly since year 1995 and even earlier to that from the year 1982. On each subsequent renewal of the policy opposite party asked Nand Kishore to undergo certain medical tests and it was only after being satisfied with his medical condition and history and after receipt of premium of Rs. 9803/- opposite party Insurance company issued cover note to the complainant. The present insurance policy was to remain in force from 2/6/2006 to 1/6/2007. On 10/10/2006 insured Nand Kishore fell ill and was taken to civil hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi and from where he was referred to CMC hospital, Ludhiana for better treatment. He was in serious condition and later on he was discharged from that hospital on 18/10/2006 when his condition became stable. Proper intimation about admission in the hospital and ailment of Nand Kishore deceased was given to the opposite party Insurance Company on 11/10/2006 at their office at Sultanpur Lodhi with entire original medical bills, papers and other documents were also furnished to the opposite party.. Complainants were stunned to know that opposite party Insurance Company had rejected the claim of deceased Nand Kishore on 31/3/2008 on the ground (i) pre-existing disease (ii) gap in the present policy. The contention of the opposite party is wrong, illegal and not binding on the complainants. Once opposite party has duly accepted the proposal for insurance and Insurance Company has received premium, they cannot disclaim the liability . Nand Kishore has been regularly getting himself insured and he was never personally examined by the opposite party or by any team of their doctors. So opposite party had no knowledge about pre-existing disease of the deceased. Now complainants have filed the present complaint for the payment of Rs. 70,000/- plus future interest till date of payment.<br /> Opposite party has denied all the allegations in their written statement. This policy was for hospitalization benefit policy and the insurance cover covers the insurance in case of death of any insured person. Counsel for the opposite party has argued that liability of Insurance Company is for Rs.50,000/- in case of death of any insured person and they are not liable to pay Rs.70,000/- as claimed in this complaint. On the other hand counsel for the complainant has argued that they are getting this insurance cover renewed regularly for last about 12 years without any break and health of the deceased at the time of issuing of the insurance cover note was perfectly alright and main reason for his death was due to old age of Nand Kishore. After consideration with the complainant , counsel for complainant and counsel for opposite party agreed that this is a fit case that opposite party would give Rs.50,000/- to the complainant of the insurance cover of Medi Guard policy mentioned above.. Counsel for complainant submitted that all complainants have agreed for payment of Rs.50,000/- to Smt.Sushila Jain complainant alone and opposite party has also agreed to pay this amount to the complainant Sushila Jain. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs,<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> Announced : (Shashi Narang )(Gulshan Prashar) (Paramjit Singh)<br /> 12.2.2009 Member Member President