Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President—These two appeals arise out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore dated 23.4.92 in O.P. 301/91. The complainant who has succeeded in part is the appellant in A.P. 258/92 while the opposite party is the appellant in A,P. 291/92.

2. The complainant who is an agriculturist took a Hospitalisation and Domicilary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy with the opposite party under Category IV of Scheme B. The period of insurance was from 30.11.89 to 29.11.90. He was admitted in the Kuppuswamy Naidu Memorial Hospital on 21.10.90 and discharged on 14.11.90 and there underwent and Open Heart Surgery for Aortic Valve Replacement, Aortic Stenosis Pericardial Effusion. He made a claim with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with all necessary particulars. The claim was rejected by the opposite party on the ground that the insured would have had the symptoms of the disease even prior to the taking of the policy and he was not, therefore, eligible It was treated as ‘no claim’. Hence this complaint.

3. The opposite party questioned the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain this complaint as it was not a contract