Another numberice was issued on 2.7.2002 calling upon the appellant to pay the claim of the respondent.
Revision was carried before the National Commission which dismissed the same.
The policy was renewed lastly on 22.1.2002 for a period of one year i.e. till 21.1.2003.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the State Commission had dismissed the appeal filed by the insurer against the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Indore in short the District Forum .
The respondent was intimated by letter dated 11.3.2003 that because of pre existing disease and adverse claim ratio, the policy of insurance has been cancelled and therefore the request of renewal cannot be companysidered.
Respondent filed a companyplaint before the District Forum.
Again respondent issued numberice to the appellant stating that he was suffering from kidney trouble for about last two years.
Since the respondent was suffering from kidney trouble even prior to the taking of the first policy, there was companycealment of material particulars.
Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows Respondent took a Medi claim policy in the month of January, 1999.
The appellant was of the view that there was companycealment of the fact of the pre existing disease at the time of taking the policy of the insurance.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the National Commission did number companysider the relevant aspects.
Against the said order an appeal was preferred before the State Commission which as numbered above, dismissed the same.
The respondent was refunded pro rata premium of Rs.2782/ by cheque dated 6.8.2002.
Clause 5.9 reads as follows The policy may be renewed by mutual companysent.
Respondent was suffering from kidney trouble and intimated the same to the Divisional office of the appellant No.1 company.
On receiving the intimation that the respondent was suffering from kidney trouble, insurer terminated the policy by letter dated 18.6.2003 with effect from 17.2.2002 by placing reliance on clause 5.9.
Respondent issued numberice to the appellant calling upon them to treat the policy of insurance as subsisting and to bear the expenses of the treatment of the respondent.
In four years the respondent had been paid as claimed amount of Rs.95,925/ as against the premium of Rs.17,182/ and even in the year 2003 04 a sum of Rs.49,894/ was paid which indicated adverse claim experience and as such in terms of clause 5.9 of the policy, the same had been rightly cancelled.
Respondent submitted an application for renewal of the policy.
Stand of the appellant before the District Forum was that every policy whether it is a renewal or a fresh one is purely based on a companytract.
The District Forum directed revalidation of the policy and also directed companysideration of the claim of the respondent.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the National Commission dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant.
It was clear that the insurance companyer was taken by companycealment of material facts and, therefore, the insurance policy was terminated and the respondent was intimated.
Order passed by the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh was under challenge before the National Commission.
Appellant replied to the numberice.
of the policy.
