ORDER (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. 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 the said Mercury Insurance in USA because said claim was to be approved and assessed by the said Company as there is agreement entered into by the appellant with the former. We feel necessary to deal with this plea and test its soundness. S.K. Sharma DM, at its Ambala DO is that the respondent did not inform the said Mercury Insurance in USA because said claim was to be approved and assessed by the said Company as there is agreement entered into by the appellant with the former. We feel necessary to deal with this plea and test its soundness. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent was put to notice in this behalf by the appellant while issuing the policy. 8.There is no material placed on record by the appellant to suggest that he was to contact the said M/s Mercury Insurance who was to approve and process the claim. Even otherwise this plea does not hold good for the simple reason, that on one hand a person like respondent who needs urgent and immediate medical care due to unforeseen situation, as such he cannot be expected to first contact and get its case approved and processed for treatment as was suggested on behalf of the appellant. Where was the office of this Company, there is nothing on record placed by appellant, why could not be explained by Mr. Sharma. 9.In case the appellant wanted to take advantage of any such clause it ought to have given a list of the places where the offices of said M/s Mercury Insurance were located in the United States of America to the respondent and also informed him that in case of an emergency how to proceed, so that he could immediately inform the said Company and get in touch with someone there. Again there is no material to this effect on the record. 10.Proposal form placed on record by the appellant which is at pages 33 to 35 of the complaint file, clearly suggests that for reasons best known to the appellant it did not get it completed and duly filled in this form by a doctor, MD (Cardiologist only). Why this was not done again learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company had no answer. Therefore, even if it be accepted what was argued by Mr. Sharma is correct, fact remains that the respondent shall be not presumed to be suffering from any disease as was urged by Mr. Why this was not done again learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company had no answer. Therefore, even if it be accepted what was argued by Mr. Sharma is correct, fact remains that the respondent shall be not presumed to be suffering from any disease as was urged by Mr. Sharma and even if that was the situation in such a case the right if any was waived by it, (i.e. the appellant), in the absence of having got the respondent medically examined when the proposal form was filed with it. It is also not the case of the appellant that it had not issued the policy after receipt of the proposal form and premium. Nor the same can be controverted on behalf of the appellant. 11.In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we feel that the respondent has been made to suffer by non settlement of his claim for the last about 9 years as it pertains to the year 1999. Despite long correspondence when nothing came out, he was forced to approach the fora for redressal of his grievance. This is a clear cut case of causing mental harassment, inconvenience and putting him to unnecessary expense. Thus he is entitled to be compensated on this count besides punitive damages and costs of litigation in this fora. At the same time appellant is liable to pay punitive damages to the respondent. 12.Faced with this situation Mr. Sharma submitted that there was no laxity and or remissness on the part of his client. This argument is being noted simply to be rejected in the light of the briefly noted facts hereinabove and also keeping in view the documents which are thereon the record of the complaint file. Further in our opinion whether the respondent has undergone surgery etc. in USA, and if so, what was the expense incurred by him could be got verified by the appellant, the aforesaid Mercury Insurance. 13.Accepting the premium and then issuing policy without medical examination as required in the proposal form, completely nails the case set out by the appellant before us. We are further of the view that the respondent is entitled to compensation for harassment and punitive damages on the facts set out by the appellant on analogy of Order XLI Rule 33 CPC. Because appellant by its acts caused undue harassment to the respondent without any justifiable ground. We are further of the view that the respondent is entitled to compensation for harassment and punitive damages on the facts set out by the appellant on analogy of Order XLI Rule 33 CPC. Because appellant by its acts caused undue harassment to the respondent without any justifiable ground. 14.No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussions, while upholding the order of the District Forum Shimla, in Complaint No. 157 of 2003, dated 9-4-2007, appellant is further held liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs in this appeal. In addition to this appellant is also liable to pay to the respondent Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment by not settling his claim, plus Rs. 10,000/- towards punitive damages. Order of the District Forum below stands modified to this extent. Ordered accordingly. All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order from the Reader free of cost. Ordered accordingly. M.R.B. ———————