JUDGMENT - A.A. HALBE, PRESIDENT:---In pursuance of the order passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 792 of 1995, the present appeal has been heard afresh. The few facts are that the complainant was insured with the O.Ps. i.e. the present appellant New India Assurance Company under Hospitalisation and Domicillary Hospitalisation Benefit (Mediclaim) Policy for the period from 20-9-90 to 19-9-91. The complainant went to Madras on 20-11-90. He had chest pain and was, therefore, admitted to Apollo Hospital, Madras. He was discharged after 2 days but was required to pay a bill of Rs. 8,125/-. Thereafter, he was admitted to Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai where he has to undergo the bye pass surgery. He was in the Hospital from 26-2-91 to 12-3-91 where he has paid bill upto Rs. 91,000/-. He preferred the claim which was repudiated by the Insurance Company by letter dt. 18-3-93. The letter reads that the Insurance Company has reason to conclude that the complainant was aware of the symptoms of I.H.D. before the Policy was obtained. There was suppression of material facts. 2. Now in the first instance, we would like to observe that the onus is on the Insurance Company to establish that the complainant was aware of the symptoms and that he purposely concealed the same. Now in this regard the Certificate of Apollo Hospital does not show this first time that when he had undergone the test. The same have been found to be positive. There was triple vessels disease. The Insurance Company in the enquiry with the Appolo Hospital wanted to note the period since when the complainant suffered the cardiac arrest disease. But the Hospital did not throw any light. Similarly, Dr. Katdare in his report dt. 16-3-92 clearly stated that after perusal of the case papers, it was not possible to comment on the duration of the symptoms from the available data because it was not mentioned in the Appolo Hospital Report whereas Dr. Patole in his report dt. 4-4-91 and another report which does not bear the date, has observed that efforts were taken to obtain the history of duration of the heart disease from Apollo Hospital and Breach Candy Hospital. But such period of duration of disease could not be gathered from these Hospitals. Patole in his report dt. 4-4-91 and another report which does not bear the date, has observed that efforts were taken to obtain the history of duration of the heart disease from Apollo Hospital and Breach Candy Hospital. But such period of duration of disease could not be gathered from these Hospitals. The Insurance Company inferred that such a disease does not occur over night and that the symptoms came to be traced within 2 months of filing of the proposal and hence there was breach of the Insurance Policy. However, we looked to the term of the Policy. It clearly mentions that the Insurance Company must establish details of knowledge of any positive existence or presence of any ailment, sickness, etc. on the part of the complainant. We find that neither the Apollo Hospital nor the Breach Candy Hospital has been able to establish that on the date of the proposal, the complainant was aware of the chest pain. All chest pains may not necessarily be treated as symptoms of heart disease or I.H.D. It may be on account of various reasons. It is for the first time that Dr. Durairaj directed the complainant to approach Apollo Hospital. He has stated that the complainant had heart problems in November, 1990 whereas the Policy is taken on 20-9-90. We, therefore, find that the Insurance Company has failed to establish that the complainant was aware of the symptoms of the heart disease when he filed the proposal which was accepted by the Insurance Company. In that light of the matter, we hold that the District Forum, Poona in Complaint No. 659/92 has rightly held that the complainant is entitled to reimbursement of the medical claim. We, therefore, see no merits in the claim. We, therefore, pass the following order: ORDER "The appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Forum is confirmed. The Insurance Company shall further pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent/complainant." Appeal dismissed.