Repudiation of his claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred over treatment of his son Nimit Goyal, taking recourse to Exclusion Clause 4.1 of the terms and conditions of the medi-claim insurance policy necessitated father to invoke jurisdiction of consumer fora. Succinctly put, relevant facts essential for consideration are that Sunil Babulal Goyal, petitioner, took medi-claim policy for his 2½ years’ son Neel Goyal from respondent insurance company paying premium of Rs. 3,048/-. Following discomfort experienced by child, father took his son to Dr. C. Gandhi of Gandhi Hospital for treatment when no improvement could be noticed. Thereafter, there was consultation with Dr. M.C. Chag, Cardiologist of Ahmedabad on 08.11.1997 which followed treatment of Nimit also at Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi where Dr. Iyer performed surgery over the child. The insured child being holder of medi-claim policy, father for claiming reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.1,40,000/- moved respondent insurance company which, as has been noticed was repudiated by respondent holding that claim lodged by petitioner fell within four corners of Exclusion Clause of insurance policy. This necessitated father to approach consumer fora. Both before District Forum, claim was resisted by respondent company taking recourse to clause 4.1 of Exclusion Clause of insurance policy for suppression of material facts about status of health of the insured child who had heart ailment from very inception of his birth. District Forum, however, having over-ruled objections of Insurance Corporation accepting claim, directed respondent to honour claim of petitioner along-with interest @ 12% p.a. and also other allied expenses, compensation and cost too was awarded. Aforesaid finding was, however, reversed by State Commission in appeal, unsuiting the petitioner. True it is that medi-claim policy was secured by petitioner’s father on 27.03.1997 and there was no evidence about previous treatment of insured child for ailment of such disease which he was shown to have suffered preceding securing insurance policy, as treatment by Dr. C. Gandhi, Dr. M.C. Chag and Dr. Iyyer of Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre were subsequent events. However, the diagnosis of Dr. M.C. Chag, Cardiologist of Ahmedabad with whom the father had consultation of child on 08.11.1997 had diagnosed child suffering with congenital heart disease. When Nimit Goyal was taken to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi on 30.01.1998, Discharge Summary issued by Escorts Heart Institute shows following features: “ Discharge Diagnosis: i) “Acyanotic congenital heart disease. ii) Perimembranous VSD Operative procedures: Dacron patch closure of VSD was done on 03.02.1998”. Resume of history in Discharge Summary is that “Master Nimit Goyal is a two-year old male child who is a case of Acyanotic congenital heart disease. He also had history of feeding difficulty. In view of symptomatic status and ECHO findings, he was advised surgery”. Diagnosis made by Dr. M.C. Chag, Cardiologist, Ahmedabad on 08.11.1997 and there being reiteration of such diagnosis by doctor of Escort Heart Institute about Master Goyal having suffered Acyanotal congenital disease would not leave much to hold about child having suffered heart ailment from inception of his birth. Even father in his complaint and in his communication made with District Forum on affidavit dated 25.10.1999, would make candid admission about Master Nimit Goyal having suffered from congenital heart disease. From very nature of disease for which child was diagnosed by two doctors, it is not a sudden ailment having crept in the body but it is from very inception of child for which father must be aware of having its knowledge. Sub-clause 4.1 of Exclusion Clause defines “pre-existing condition also means any sickness or its symptoms which necessitated prior to the effective date of this insurance, whether or not the insured person had knowledge that the symptoms were relating to the sickness. Complications arising from pre-existing disease will be considered part of that pre-existing condition”. Clause 4.3 provides that “…… during first year of the operation of the policy, the expenses incurred on diseases such as cataract ….. congenital internal disease ….. and related disorders are not payable. If these diseases (other than congenital internal diseases/defect) are pre-existing at the time of proposal, they will not be covered even during subsequent period of renewal too………”. Even though there was no evidence about renewal of the medi-claim policy by parents of insured child, petitioner in his communication dated 29.03.1998 made with respondent company claimed reimbursement of medical expenses, the aforesaid medi-claim policy being a renewed policy and rider of 12 months’ duration condition being not applicable in his case. These features of case eloquently suggest suppression of material facts for ‘status of health’ of insured child and respondent insurance company having bonafidely issued policy with positive belief that policy-holder - child was quite well. The suppression of vital information would ipso facto render contract of insurance ‘void’. Finding of State Commission cannot be faulted with and revision petition in the circumstances is dismissed with no order as to cost.