ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is insurer’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 87 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 2,63,182/- together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment; Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,500/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant – Sh. Pradeep Dhawan had obtained a hospitalisation benefit policy from the appellant – National Insurance Company Limited for himself and his wife Smt. Soni Dhawan. Under the said policy, which was valid for the period from 04.01.2009 to 03.01.2010, the complainant was insured for sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and whereas his wife was insured for sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Under the said policy, the complainant was also provided cumulative bonus cover of Rs. 80,000/- and his wife was also provided cumulative bonus cover of Rs. 30,000/-. It is alleged that on 11.10.2009, the complainant fell ill and was admitted in City Hospital, New Delhi affiliated with Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi (authorised by the insurance company for treatment of persons insured under the said policy), from where he was discharged on 17.10.2009. The hospital authorities issued bill for sum of Rs. 5,41,781.61/- and told that the complainant is required to pay sum of Rs. 2,63,182/-, because the said amount has not been paid by the insurance company. The complainant contacted the opposite parties, but the insurance company told that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company is liable to pay sum of Rs. 2,78,599.61/- only and the balance amount of Rs. 2,63,182/- is to be paid by the complainant. Finding no other alternative, the complainant deposited the said amount with the hospital. The complainant thereafter sent legal notice to the opposite parties, but to no avail. The insurance company sent a cheque of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant with the endorsement that the complainant should receive the said amount in full and final settlement of his mediclaim. Finding no other alternative, the complainant deposited the said amount with the hospital. The complainant thereafter sent legal notice to the opposite parties, but to no avail. The insurance company sent a cheque of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant with the endorsement that the complainant should receive the said amount in full and final settlement of his mediclaim. The complainant did not accept the said cheque and alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The opposite parties filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the liability of the insurance company under cashless settlement of claim was to the tune of Rs. 3,18,600/-, out of which, sum of Rs. 2,78,600/- was immediately paid to the hospital during the treatment of the complainant and the balance amount of Rs. 40,000/- was sent to the complainant vide cheque No. 517485 dated 11.03.2010; that the said cheque was returned by the complainant; that the insurance company has settled the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 19.09.2011 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record. We have also considered the written arguments filed by respondent – complainant. 6. The case of the insurance company is that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, it is liable to pay 50% of the sum insured under the policy and since the insured amount pertaining to the complainant including bonus was Rs. 5,80,000/- and hence the maximum liability of the insurance company towards reimbursement of medical expenses etc. was Rs. 2,90,000/- and by adding the room rent charges and doctor’s fee, the net liability of the insurance company was Rs. 3,18,600/-, out of which, sum of Rs. 2,78,600/- was paid to the hospital authorities and the cheque of remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- was sent to the complainant, which he refused to accept and hence there has not been any deficiency in service on their part. 7. 3,18,600/-, out of which, sum of Rs. 2,78,600/- was paid to the hospital authorities and the cheque of remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- was sent to the complainant, which he refused to accept and hence there has not been any deficiency in service on their part. 7. In support of its defence, the insurance company has placed reliance on condition Nos. 1.2 (A), (B) and (C) of the salient features of the mediclaim insurance policy, which read as under: “A. Room, Boarding, Nursing expenses as provided by the Hospital/Nursing Home. Room Rent Limit: 1% of Sum Insured per day subject to maximum of Rs. 5,000/-. If admitted in IC unit – 2% of Sum Insured per day subject to maximum of Rs. 10,000/-. Overall limit under this head: 25% of Sum Insured per illness. B. Surgeon, Anesthetist Medical Practitioner, Consultants Specials fees. Maximum limit per illness – 25% of Sum Insured. C. Anesthesia, Blood, Oxygen, OT charges, Surgical appliances, Medicines, drugs, Diagnostic Material & X-Ray, Dialysis, Chemotherapy, Radiotherapy, cost of pacemaker, artificial limbs and costs of stent and implant. Maximum limit per illness – 50% of Sum Insured.” 8. The insurance company has basically placed reliance on condition No. 1.2 (C) of the policy and has stated that since the sum insured was Rs. 5,80,000/- and hence the maximum liability of the insurance company was Rs. 2,90,000/- and by adding the amount towards room rent charges and doctor’s fee, the net liability of the insurance company comes to Rs. 3,18,600/- and it was not liable to pay any amount in excess of the same. 9. The complainant has specifically pleaded in para No. 17 of the consumer complaint that at the time of taking the policy, he was not informed that there is any such sealing limit in the policy and the maximum liability of the insurance company has been restricted. Similar contention has been made by the complainant in para No. 18 of his affidavit filed before the District Forum. The insurance company has not filed any evidence to show that the terms and conditions of the policy were provided to the complainant and that he was in the knowledge that the maximum liability of the insurance company is restricted to certain amount. 10. The insurance company has not filed any evidence to show that the terms and conditions of the policy were provided to the complainant and that he was in the knowledge that the maximum liability of the insurance company is restricted to certain amount. 10. The District Forum has elaborately dealt with this aspect of the matter and on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, has opined that if the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are not the part of the contract of insurance and are not disclosed to the insured, the insurer can not claim benefit of any exclusion clause of the policy. The District Forum has also observed that no terms and conditions of the policy are attached with the copy of the policy filed by the complainant before the District Forum. It is also important to mention here that in regard to para Nos. 17 to 19 of the consumer complaint, the opposite parties have not given any specific reply in their written statement and have merely stated, “that the contents of para Nos. 17 to 19 of the consumer complaint are wrong and are denied. The complainant is put to strict proof thereof. More facts would appear in the subsequent paragraph”. Thus, there is no specific denial from the side of the opposite parties on the allegation made by the complainant in para No. 17 of the consumer complaint. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited a decision dated 05.12.2011 of the Hon’ble National Commission rendered in Revision Petition No. 3453 of 2007; Bellard Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. In the said case, the complainant has alleged that no detailed policy document was ever supplied to him by the insurance company. It was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that it is not the case of the complainant that though he demanded the same, the same was not supplied to him. Further, the complainant is not a new man to this trade. If that it so, necessarily we are of the view that IMT 41 has been enclosed to the policy and handed over the same to the complainant, but the same has not been produced before the District Forum. It was also held that the complainant can not take plea of ignorance of the same on the grounds that it was not explained to him. It was also held that the complainant can not take plea of ignorance of the same on the grounds that it was not explained to him. Therefore, even if the complainant was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy because these were not fully supplied to him, he can not seek his defence on the ground that he was unaware of the relevant legal provisions of the law. In the case in hand, as is stated above, the complainant has specifically pleaded in the consumer complaint as well as in his affidavit that at the time of taking the policy, he was not informed of any such sealing limit in the policy. The opposite parties have not given any specific reply of the said averment made by the complainant. As has been stated above, the copy of the policy filed by the complainant before the District Forum did not contain any terms and conditions, which goes to show that no terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant. Thus, the appellant can not get any benefit of the cited case law. 12. In view of the above discussion, the District Forum was perfectly justified in allowing the consumer complaint. There is no dispute with regard to the quantum and hence the amount of Rs. 2,63,182/- awarded by the District Forum is fully justified and can not be faulted with. However, the interest awarded by the District Forum @9% p.a., is on the higher side and in our view, the same need to be reduced to 7% p.a. Since the complainant has been awarded interest, there is no question of separate compensation for mental agony and hence the award of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony is liable to be set aside. The litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500/- awarded by the District Forum, are also on the higher side and the same need to be reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, the appeal succeed partly and is to be allowed accordingly and the order impugned is to be modified. 13. Appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 19.09.2011 of the District Forum is modified and the appellant is directed to pay sum of Rs. 2,63,182/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. 13. Appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 19.09.2011 of the District Forum is modified and the appellant is directed to pay sum of Rs. 2,63,182/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. However, the cost of the appeal is made easy.