Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President— This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.11.1993 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint No. 145 / 92. Facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant got himself insured for Hospitalisation and Domicilliary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy. Under this policy if a person falls sick during the continuance of the policy then the entire expenses borne by the person is to be reimbursed by the Insurance Company. For the first time the complainant took insurance policy for a period of one year from 1.7.1988 to 30.6.1989. Thereafter it was further renewed from 18.7.1989 to 17.7.1990 and was again renewed in continuation from 18.7.1990 to 17.7.1991 ..For this policy he had paid a premium of Rs. 1,575/- per annum. It was further alleged that the complainant felt some pain in his chest on 8.3.1991 and he was admitted in the District Hospital, Gorakhpur for treatment. He was told that he had some heart problem and for further investigation and treatment he was admitted in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi on 7.4.1991. During his treatment he had spent a sum of Rs. 59303.70 for which the information was sent to the Insurance Company, the opposite party and a claim was put forward. This claim was repudiated on the ground that the claim is not correct in view of the question No. 10. A copy of the repudiation letter dated 14.10.1991 has been filed. It was alleged by the opposite party that he had suppressed the material facts and was aware of the disease before taking the policy. According to the complainant he never knew about his illness before he took the policy and for the first time he came to know about his illness on 8.3.1991. He had also indicated to the complainant that he has not taken any leave from his department prior to this date. It was a sudden development and the claim has been repudiated on the surmises.

2. Thus on his illness the complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 59,303.70 on account of expenses incurred by him and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as damages.

3. In the written version of the opposite party, it has been alleged that the complainant had suppressed the illness and has not disclosed the correct facts. Insurance is done on the presumption that the insured person is giving correct information. On the basis of the discharge summary report dated 15.4.1991 which was issued by Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, it was written in the “resume of history” that the complainant is suffering from ‘angina’ (heart ailment) from the last 4 years. This angina has reached in the 3rd stage. It was further alleged that the opposite party took an opinion from their Doctor T.N. Singh, Chest Specialist and he, vide his report dated 5.9.1991, has mentioned that the complainant was using special medicines and must have been aware of this disease before taking the policy. Accordingly, the opposite party should repudiate the claim.

4. On the basis of evidence on record and hearing the learned Counsel of both parties, the learned District Consumer Forum has come to the conclusion that the complainant had suffered from this disease before and must be aware about the existence of this disease before taking the policy. It has further been alleged that the complainant had given wrong facts and has not disclosed the correct history while taking the policy.

5. Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the complainant has filed this appeal and challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar.

6. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the facts on records. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is whether at the time of renewing the policy from 18.7.1989 to 17.7.1990 the complainant knew about his disease ‘angina’ which has caused him heart trouble and took treatment in Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi. According to