(Arun Kumar Goel, J, (Retd.) President)(Oral) - Respondent having obtained Videsh Vatra Mitra Policy on 25.5.1999 for proceeding on foreign tour for 28 days of U.S.A. U.K. and Europe, as also having paid Rs. 1754/- as premium is not in dispute.

2.From the record it is apparent that respondent had undergone medical treatment after he left uneasiness in USA. He consulted the doctor there, and was operated upon for sudden blockage of veins in which he incurred an expense of Rs. 2 lacs. The doctor he consulted advised such an operation. On return the respondent asked the appellant to indemnify him in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs. This claim was resisted. As according to the appellant, respondent was already suffering from this disease and had withheld this material fact when he obtained the policy in question referred to hereinabove. Further ground to contest the claim was that the respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy subject to which insurance was undertaken by the appellant, therefore, he was not entitled to anything.

3.In this background Complaint No. 157 of 2003 was filed and was allowed on 9.4.2007 by the District Forum below. By means of impugned order appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 5.11.2003 till actual payment was made alongwith litigation costs of Rs. 1500/-. Hence this appeal.

4.At the time of hearing Mr. Sharma learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that even if what is alleged by the respondent regarding his suffering sudden ailment is USA is accepted for the sake of argument, he ought to have approached M/s Mercury Insurance there, who was to arrange for his treatment on behalf of his client. Further according to him policy having been obtained by fraud as the respondent was already suffering from disease for which he was operated upon in USA and he purposely withheld this fact, therefore, the contract of insurance became void and thus non-est. Lastly and in the alternative without in any manner conceding the claim of the respondent, he stated that total sum of Rs. 650 dollars in all was paid, therefore at best the respondent is entitled to its equivalent value in Indian Currency on the date of its payment i.e. 24.6.1999. In this behalf he referred to Annexure C-5 produced by the respondent.

5.All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Verma learned Counsel for the respondent. According to him when a reference is made to the documents placed by the parties on record, it is clear that in the policy in question copy whereof is at page 25, there is no mention advising the respondent to contact M/s Mercury Insurance and there is no document on record to even remotely suggest that address of this insurance was given in the Medi Claim Policy in question.

6.Documents have been placed by the respondent which clearly suggest that he had undergone the treatment while in USA. Respondent has placed on record his own affidavit which is at page 51 and has given the details of expenditure incurred by him. Annexure C-5 is a receipt of payment which shows that besides 650 dollars, he also paid for surgery 3600 dollars vide Master Card. Thus it is clear that the respondent had paid in all 4250 US dollars while undergoing surgery etc. for the ailment from which he suddenly suffered during the currency of the policy obtained by him in respect of his visit to USA. UK and Europe. This negatives the altemative plea of the learned Counsel for the appellant that respondent had incurred at best spent 650 dollars and nothing more. Even otherwise plea in the fact of Annexure C-5 has no merit.

7.Another reason to reject the plea of Mr. Sharma on behalf of the appellant that before having undergone surgery etc. in USA, appellant ought to have contacted M/s Mercury Insurance as mentioned in the affidavit of Dr. S.K. Sharma DM, at its Ambala DO is that the respondent did not inform th