Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Subhash B. Jatania vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 12 January, 2015

  
 
 
 
 
 

 
 





 

 



 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION 

 NEW DELHI 

 

  

 REVISION PETITION NO. 3515 OF
2009  

 (From order dated 04.07.2009 in First Appeal No. 1158 of
2008 of the  

 Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai) 

 

  

 

  

 

Subhash B. Jatania 

 

E-601, 602, Shankeshwar Nagar, 

 

Shiv Vallabh Road, Dahisar
, 

 

Mumbai 400 068    Petitioner 

 

  

 

  

   Versus 

 

  

 

  

 

National
Insurance Co. Ltd. 

 

NTC House,
P.O. Box No. 8, 

 

N. Morarji Marg, Ballard Estate, 

 

Mumbai 400 038   Respondent 

 

   

 

   

 

 BEFORE: 

 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M.
MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 

 

 HONBLE
DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 

 

  

 

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kabir Hathi, Advocate  

 

  

 

For the Respondent :
NEMO 

 

  

 

  

 

  

  Dated: 12.01.2015 

 

  

 O R D E R 
 

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Shri Subhash B. Jatania, the complainant obtained Medi claim policy covering hospitalisation charges from National Insurance Co., the OP and which was renewed to 21.6.2003. The complainant was hospitalised from period 6.11.2001 to 6.12.2001 for the known case of myasthenia gravis. His claim was repudiated.

2. The State Commission passed the following order:

Coming to the merit of the case, we find the Forum below did not appreciate the facts properly nay the appreciation of evidence lead is rather perverse and as such arrived at a wrong conclusion. The Insurance Company, to justify the repudiation, has produced on record the documents inter alia including the insurance policy and the proposal form, where admittedly there is no disclosure of any pre-disease condition.
Myasthenia Gravis was found present and the complainant was suffering from it as per the history given since form the month of February, 2000. The disease as it seems relates to Muscular Paralysis and therefore, the patient must be experiencing and aware of it. It is not a silent disease which is may go ununotied. Dr. B. S. Singhal, a renowed NeuropPhysician examined the complainant on 01/08/2001 also categorically noted that the complainant treating doctor confirmed and gave history of symptoms of Myasthenia Graves for duration of six months prior to his examination. Therefore, when the proposal form was filled in on 20/06/2001, not disclosing of the same the mischief was committed and thus, Insurance Company -3- rightly inferred after careful investigation of the case that there being a breach committed by the complainant of utmost good faith, the claim needs to be repudiated.

3. The observation of the State Commission is supported by medical certificate Ext-E, which runs as follows:

This is to certify that Mr. Subhash B. Jatania is under my treatment from 4/11/01. The observations made on your reply of 22/2/2002 implies that hypertension is the cause of his illness. This is absolutely stupid Myasthenia gravis is an auto immune disease and hypotonia has no relation whatsoever to his present illness.
I recommend that you should refer your files to qualified doctors for operation Sd/-
R. No. 31037

4. We see no flaw in this context. The order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.

...

(J. M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER     ...

(DR.S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Naresh/15