Surjit Singh, President—This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 8.5.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent Jasbir Singh against the present appellant, has been allowed and a direction is given to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,37,830 on account of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of its payment and also to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of compensation and Rs.2,500 as litigation expenses.

2. Admitted facts are that respondent Jasbir Singh purchased a health policy from the appellant for his parents, for the period from 20.12.2010 to 19.12.2011. The policy was renewed from 20.12.2011 to 19.12.2012. After the purchase of the policy, father of respondent had some medical problem. He was got medically checked up and it was found that he had heart coronary disease. He was operated upon at National Heart Institute, New Delhi on 15.12.2011. A sum of Rs. 2,24,330 was spent on the treatment at National Heart Institute and another sum of Rs.13,500 was spent on Angiography at Metro Hospital and Heart Institute, New Delhi. Claim was lodged with the appellant for reimbursement of the expenses incurred on the treatment and Angiography, as per terms and conditions of the policy. Appellant initially sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,50,000, but later on refused to pay even the said amount of money and repudiated the claim on the ground that father of the appellant had been suffering from Hypertension for the last seven years, which fact he had suppressed while submitting the proposal form. It was stated that suppression of this fact disentitled the respondent to reimbursement in view of clause-1 of Part-III of the Schedule to the policy, as also exclusion clause 3.1 of the Schedule.

3. Appellant then filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the appellant to pay the insurance money with interest and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

4. Complaint was contested by the appellant. It was stated that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the policy was issued at Bombay. On merits, it was stated that the appellant was guilty of suppression of material facts, which disentitled him to seek indemnification in view of clause-1 of Part-III of the Schedule to the policy and exclusion clause 3.1 of Part-II of the same schedule. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to reimburse Rs.2,37,830.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

6. Clause-1 of Part-III of the Schedule to the policy as also clause 3.1 of Part-II of the, Schedule, relying upon which the claim has been repudiated are reproduced below for ready reference:

“Part- III of the Schedule

Standard Terms and Conditions

1. Incontestability and Duty of Disclosure The policy shall be null and void and no benefit shall be payable in the event of untrue or incorrect statements, misrepresentation, mis-description or on non disclosure in any material particular in the proposal form, personal statement, declaration and connected documents, or any material information having been withheld, or a claim being fraudulent or any fraudulent means or devices being used by the insured or anyone acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under this policy.

Part II of the Schedule

3. Exclusions

3.1 Any pre-existing illness. The claims arising on account of or in connection with any Pre-existing illness shall be excluded from the scope of cover under the policy. This exclusion shall cease to apply subject to the exclusions mentioned in sub-clause 3.4 hereinbelow, if the Insured has taken a Healthcare Policy from the Company and has been