Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum.

          Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant had taken a mediclaim policy from the respondent insurance company for the period from 13.9.2000 to 12.9.2001.  She was having some pain in the stomach.  She was admitted in the Muljibhai Patel Urology Nadiyad as indoor patient on 9.2.2001 and discharged on 19.2.2001.  She was operated for Adrenalectomy, for which she paid a sum of Rs.50,895/- to the hospital.  Petitioner submitted her claim with the insurance company, which was repudiated on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed material fact regarding her health as she has failed to disclose about her disease in the proposal form.  According to the respondent, she was suffering from Hypertension for the last 1½ year.  Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.50,095/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., from 16.12.2002, till realization.  Rs.3,000/- were awarded by way of costs.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by the impugned order.  State Commission held that the petitioner was suffering from Hypertension for the last 1½ year, which led to the operation of Adrenalectomy.

          Counsel for the parties have been heard.

          Respondent insurance company produced a “Patient Verification Form” issued by the hospital where the petitioner was operated, in which it is mentioned that the petitioner was suffering from Hypertension for the last 1½ year.  Counsel for the respondent  contends that this shows that the petitioner was suffering from Hypertension at the time of taking the policy.  The doctor has not recorded in the “Patient Verification Form” as to who supplied this information to the hospital.  The doctor of the hospital, who had examined or operated upon the patient, has also not been produced.  Respondent has produced an opinion given by Dr.Yogendra Shah, which on the basis of the hospital record stated that the petitioner was suffering from Hypertension for the last 1½ year.  This is an unproven document.  Affidavit of the doctor, who has given this opinion, has not been filed by way of evidence.  This document cannot be taken into consideration because the petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity to examine the doctor as to his competence to give the opinion as well as the basis on which this opinion has been rendered. 

State Commission has passed the impugned order based on an unproven document, which cannot be sustained.  Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored.  Respondent is directed to pay the sum of Rs.50,095/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization within a period of 6 weeks from today.

Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.