Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

        Challenge in this Revision Petition, by Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company"), is to the order dated 5.5.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal at Kolkata (for short "the State Commission"), in First Appeal No.A/582/2015.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 21.4.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit I, Kolkata (for short "the District Forum") in CDF/Unit-I/Case No.487/2012.  In the first instance, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1 herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in rejecting his claim for reimbursement of the amount expended by him on installation of a new pace-maker while travelling abroad, on the ground that since the Complainant had already got a pace-maker fixed at the time of taking the policy, in view of the Exclusion Clause in the Travel Guard Insurance Policy, viz., "this policy does not provide benefits for any loss resulting in whole or in part from, or expenses incurred, directly or indirectly in respect of any pre-existing condition or any complication arising from it", Insurance Company was not liable to accept the claim in respect of a pre-existing disease and therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim.

2.     Being aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant carried the matter further in Appeal to the State Commission, in which the impugned order has been passed, directing the Insurance Company to reimburse to him a sum equivalent to US$ 15932.24 (US$ 16,032.24 - US$ 100), in Indian currency as per exchange rate applicable at the time of payment along with a sum of ₹50,000/- as compensation.  Hence, the present Revision Petition.

3.     Briefly stated, the material facts, leading to the filing of the Complaint are that while opting for the Mediclaim Policy in the year 2010, in the Proposal Form, the Complainant had disclosed that a pace-maker had been installed on 18.6.2004.  Based on the said information, he obtained from the Insurance Company on 7.5.2010, an Overseas Travel Accident Travel Guard Silver, Gold, Platinum & Annual Multi Trip Insurance Policy.  In the said Policy, pre-existing condition was defined as follows :

"Pre-existing Condition - a condition for which care, treatment or advice was recommended by or received from a Physician or which was first manifested or contracted within two year period preceding the Policy Effective Date of Coverage, or a condition for which hospitalization or surgery was required within a five year period preceding the Policy Effective Date specified in the Schedule".

4.     It appears that while travelling in Boston, USA the Complainant felt some problem with the pace-maker, installed in 2004.  He consulted a Medical Center at Boston, where a new pace-maker was inserted on 27.5.2010.  For the entire treatment at the Medical Center, the Complainant had to incur an expenditure of US$27,638.48.  On return, he filed the claim with the Insurance Company for the said amount which, as noted above, was repudiated on the afore-noted ground.

8.     On a pointed query with regard to the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company in support of its allegation that right from the year 2004, when the pace-maker was installed, till the year 2010 when it needed replacement, the Complainant was under regular treatment, learned Counsel has relied on the Cardiac Results Report issued by the Medical Center in Boston.  Having perused the said document, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel that the said report clearly suggests that the Complainant was under regular treatment, relating to the pace-maker during the aforesaid period of almost six years.  The said report only records the factum of placement of vitatron pace-maker in June 2004.  It does not even remotely refer to any kind of regular treatment the Complainant was undergoing in respect of the pace-maker.  In the absence of any other evidence in that behalf, no fault can be found with the interpretation of the afore-stated pre-existing condition in the Policy by the State Commission.  Furthermore, when at the time of obtaining the Policy the Complainant had admittedly declared that a pace-maker was placed in his body in the year 2004, and according to the Insurance Company, it was to be treated as a pre-existing disease, we really wonder why in the first instance, the Insurance Company issued the Policy in question in the year 2010.