ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, is directed against the order dated 13.03.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 52 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs.1,66,000/- to the complainant towards reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him towards his angiography and angioplasty; Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of one month from the date of the order, failing which the complainant was also held entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a Varistha Mediclaim for Senior Citizens policy from the appellant – National Insurance Company Limited. Under the said policy, the complainant was provided cover of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards hospitalization and domiciliary hospitalization and cover of Rs. 2,00,000/- was provided towards critical illness. The policy was purchased in the year 2007 and the same was renewed every year. On 09.06.2010, the complainant suffered an angina attack, in regard to which he was admitted in Bharat Heart Institute, Dehradun. In the said medical institute, the angiography of the complainant was done and angioplasty was also done in order to remove the blockage and two stents were also inserted. The complainant was discharged on 12.06.2010. The complainant spent a sum of Rs. 3,28,268/- in his treatment. Vipul MedCorp TPA Private Limited, Haryana, which was the opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum and which has not been impleaded as party in the present appeal by the appellant and which is the agent of the appellant, sent a discharge voucher to the complainant for settlement of claim at Rs. 71,000/-, which the complainant refused to accept. It was alleged that the complainant is entitled to reimbursement of Rs. 1,66,000/- towards expenses of coronary artery surgery, which falls under critical illness. However, since the claim of the complainant was not settled by the opposite parties and, as such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. 1,66,000/- towards expenses of coronary artery surgery, which falls under critical illness. However, since the claim of the complainant was not settled by the opposite parties and, as such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the mediclaim policy, upon detection of any critical illness, notice with full particulars was required to be sent to the company within a period of 15 days from the date of diagnosis of the disease and, as such, the complainant was obliged to give intimation to the insurance company regarding critical disease within a period of 15 days of its detection; that the complainant submitted the medical papers to the opposite party No. 2, who after going through the same, observed that no open heart surgery was performed, which was essential for bringing the case under critical illness clause; that the claim of the complainant was approved for sum of Rs. 71,000/-; that later on, it was found that the complainant was entitled to sum of Rs. 74,655/- and the complainant was asked to execute the discharge voucher for the said amount, but he did not do so and filed the consumer complaint 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 13.03.2012 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. None appeared on behalf of respondent – complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had undergone angiography and angioplasty. The main dispute in the present case is whether the angiography and angioplasty undergone by the complainant, falls under the category of “critical illness” under the mediclaim policy in question or not. In para 4A of the consumer complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that at the time of filling the proposal form, coronary artery surgery was mentioned as angioplasty in the prospectus and that coronary artery surgery was covered under critical illness. In para 4A of the consumer complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that at the time of filling the proposal form, coronary artery surgery was mentioned as angioplasty in the prospectus and that coronary artery surgery was covered under critical illness. The insurance company has not denied the averments made by the complainant in para 4A of the consumer complaint and has simply stated in para 1 of its written statement that the contents of para 1 to 7 of the consumer complaint are matter of record and do not call for any reply. 7. Thus, there is no specific denial from the side of the insurance company to the averments made by the complainant in para 4A of the consumer complaint, which gives weightage to the case of the complainant. The complainant has come up with a specific case that at the time of submitting the proposal form, he was told by the insurance company that coronary artery surgery is covered under critical illness and that angioplasty is also covered under coronary artery surgery and hence, it can not the said that the claim of the complainant was not covered under the policy. The District Forum has rightly held that the claim of the complainant was covered under the policy and we do not find any infirmity in the said finding recorded by the District Forum. 8. The insurance company has also taken the stand that in the event of complainant suffering from critical illness, he was obliged to give intimation to the insurance company regarding critical disease within a period of 15 days of its detection. The wife of the complainant had written a letter to the opposite party No. 2 on 11.06.2010 (Paper No. 22), stating therein that “her husband (complainant) had a sudden heart problem and was admitted to Bharat Heart Institute on 08.06.2010, where he is presently improving. This is for your information”. The said letter was duly received by the opposite party No. 2 on 12.06.2010 itself. Thus, there was no delay on the part of the complainant in giving the intimation regarding his heart ailment to the insurance company. The District Forum has elaborately considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim of the complainant. 9. The District Forum has elaborately considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim of the complainant. 9. So far as the quantum is concerned, the District Forum has awarded sum of Rs. 1,66,000/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses. Since, we have held above that angioplasty falls under coronary artery surgery and the same was also covered under the policy and hence the complainant was rightly held entitled to the said amount. Even otherwise, the insurance company has not raised any dispute with regard to the said amount awarded by the District Forum and there is also no evidence on record to show that the said amount awarded by the District Forum is on the higher side and against the evidence and material on record. So far as the interest awarded by the District Forum @9% p.a. is concerned, we are of the view that the same is on the higher side and in our considered opinion, 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. 50,000/- passed by the District Forum towards mental agony, is liable to be set aside. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the District Forum, are justified. This way, the appeal succeeds partly and is to be allowed accordingly and the order impugned passed by the District Forum is to be modified as such. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 13.03.2012 passed by the District Forum is modified and the appellant – insurance company is directed to pay sum of Rs. 1,66,000/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses, as awarded by the District Forum. The cost of the appeal is made easy.