IMPORTANT POINT
Order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and not executable.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 1st August 2016 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 661 of 2014.

2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner had taken an insurance policy from the respondent/ opposite parties under which the petitioner, his wife and daughter were insured for the period 06.10.2010 to 06.10.2055. The petitioner has taken the said policy by paying the annual premium of Rs.17,000/- to the respondent no. 1 and from the branch office of respondent no. 2. Under this policy, an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- for separate surgery interest benefit insurance amount and Rs.1,400/- primary daily hospital cash interest benefit was payable. The wife of the petitioner Smt Shweta suddenly fell ill on 12.05.2012 and the petitioner took her for treatment to Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital Samjiguda Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh where she was treated for ovarian cancer. Preliminary check-ups were done by Dr Ranjanath R on 14.05.2012, an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid to the doctor for check-up and after the check up the doctor found the wife of the petitioner was suffering from cancer disease. The petitioner underwent both surgery and chemotherapy. As the policy number was not mentioned in the written intimation given to the office of respondent no. 2 insurance company was asked to re-submit the claim with the policy number. The petitioner, mentioning the policy number, on 24.09.2012 re-submitted the form to the respondent insurance for claiming medi-claim amount.

3. The claim form provided by the insurance company and other medical related form that was necessary for claiming the amount was completely filled by the petitioner and submitted the same in the office of the insurance company on 15.01.2012. The petitioner acknowledged receipt of all the claims along with the documents through registered post on 31.10.2012 by the respondent no. 2. The petitioner was also asked to submit all the documents certified by a gazetted officer on which the petitioner on 22.01.2013 after getting all the desired documents verified sent the same to the respondent no.2 through courier. Respondent no. 2 sent a letter repudiating the insurance claim to the petitioner on 28.03.2013. Due to the non-payment of medi-claim amount by the respondents, the petitioner suffered heavy financial difficulties because of which the petitioner was liable to receive mental and financial compensation and the petitioner from the respondents to receive the expenses incurred an amount of Rs.3,06,058/- for the treatment of his wife, by not making the payment of which the respondents have done deficiency in service.

4. Respondent no. 1 and 2 before the District Forum in their version by submitting a written statement had stated that the petitioner in relation to the claim had submitted incomplete documents which the respondents have submitted as per rules to the TPA and the information of which was given to the petitioner. The petitioner for the disposal of the claim had not submitted the necessary and desired documents to the respondents because of which the claim file by the division office as per the rule for its disposal, on 31.12.2012 submitted the same to the TPA with incomplete documents. TPA provided the list of the desired documents and requested for the documents within 10 days from the petitioner on 12.12.2012 and on 09.02.2013. The requested documents, however, were not submitted by the petitioner and thus, on 28.03.2013 the claim of petitioner as per the conditions of the policy and as the claim did not fall within the privileges allowed the claim was dismissed by TPA. The remaining documents were submitted by the petitioner on 22.01.2013 were submitted to TPA on 03.05.2014. The respondents by not paying the medi-claim amount of the petitioner has not done any deficiency