PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. A/08/1250 HDFC Vs. Vir Bhan Sharma by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent is an Advocate and purchased a primary and add on mediclaim policy for his family including his wife and minor daughter for Rs.2,00,000/- from OP/petitioner and paid Rs.950/- vide cheque dated 12.7.2004. OP issued two credit cards bearing No. 5176358010146727. On 26.8.2004, complainant wife Dr. Savita Sharma undergone Angioplasty and was discharged from hospital on 7.9.2004. Hospital raised bill for Rs.1,58,786.71 ps. Complainant could not avail mediclaim facility due to non-receipt of third party administrator Identity Card. OP sent three identity cards for the period 26.7.2005 to 25.7.2006, after more than a year from the receipt of the application. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that OP is not a service provider. It was further submitted that due to non-joinder of parties; namely, National Insurance Company and Family Health Plus Ltd. and the Third Party Administrator, complaint was not maintainable against the OP. It was further submitted that complainant declaration is to be read along with the Credit card. Complainant did not obtain pre-authorization before availing the Health Plus facility as per terms and conditions and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.1,58,786.71 ps. along with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even without coverage on the date of operation of complainant wife and without impleading necessary parties and without any liability of the petitioner, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, respondent in person who is an Advocate submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. It is admitted fact that complainant wife had undergone Angioplasty on 26.8.2004 for which bill was raised by the hospital which was not paid by OP. Nowhere in the complaint any document pertaining to coverage of mediclaim on 26.8.2004 has been placed on record. In paragraph 8 of the complaint three identity cards for the period from 26.7.2005 to 25.7.2006 have been mentioned. As per averments in the complaint cheque of Rs.950/- for coverage was issued by complainant on 12.7.2004 and OP issued