K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 52 of 2012– Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Shri Utpal Shrimal by which, appeal was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent obtained medi-claim policy from OP/petitioner from 13.10.2009 to 6.5.2011 for himself, his wife and two daughters. Complainant’s wife Garima was treated in hospital from 6.5.2011 to 8.5.2011 and complainant incurred expenses of Rs.25,714/-. Complainant submitted claim, but OP remitted only Rs.1050/- and repudiated rest of the claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint, admitted issuance of policy, but submitted that claim was rightly repudiated as per terms and conditions of policy. It was further submitted that TPA E-Meditek Service Ltd. had not given clear decision regarding Major Surgical Benefit and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.24,139/- along with Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is not speaking order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission for deciding appeal by speaking order. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5. Perusal of record reveals that learned District forum allowed claim for first 2 days as well expenses incurred in the treatment. In memo of appeal filed before State Commission, OP has mainly assailed order allowing expenses for two days and learned State Commission after dealing aforesaid point rightly dismissed appeal holding that two days hospitalization charges were also required to be paid by OP. In memo of appeal before State Commission, OP has not assailed order allowing treatment charges and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that impugned order is not speaking order.

6. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.

Revision Petition dismissed.