ORDER Justice P.S. Rana (R) President —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order passed by District Forum in consumer complaint No.421/2014 title Pritpal Singh v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. decided on 26.08.2016 . Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Pritpal Singh filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant was insured with opposite parties vide LIC''s Jeevan Arogya policy (Table 903) No.154176859 dated 28.09.2011 under basic plan. It is further pleaded that during existence of insurance policy complainant sustained illness and he was medically treated in Satguru Partap Singh Appollo Hospital w.e.f.18.06.2012 to 28.06.2012 vide IP No.12/5892. It is pleaded that complainant submitted claim bills before insurance company but insurance company repudiated claim. Following reliefs sought (i) Relief of hospitalization to the tune of Rs.272000/- (Two lacs and seventy two thousand) (ii) Additional relief to the tune of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) sought as compensation for mental harassment (iii) Additional relief of Rs.15000/- (Fifteen Thousand) sought as costs of complaint. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of insurance company pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that complainant has flouted terms & conditions of insurance policy. It is pleaded that complainant did not disclose his prior ailment i.e. ailment of dyspnoea and hypertension. It is pleaded that complainant suppressed material facts from insurance company at the time of obtaining insurance policy and prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum allowed complaint on dated 26.08.2016 and ordered that opposite parties would settle claim of complainant within 30 days as per terms & conditions of insurance policy or would repudiate claim on any other ground or if complainant would not be satisfied with settlement then complainant would be at liberty to file fresh complaint on same cause of action. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite parties to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) to complainant and also ordered to pay costs of litigation to complainant to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand). 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum insurance company filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum insurance company filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8. Complainant Pritpal Singh filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent got himself insured with opposite parties vide policy No. 154176859 on dated 28.09.2011. There is further recital in affidavit that during existence of insurance policy deponent sustained illness and he got his medical treatment in S.P.S. Apollo Hospital Ludhiana where deponent remained admitted w.e.f. 18.06.2012 to 28.06.2012. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent submitted his hospitalization claim before opposite parties but opposite parties repudiated claim. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite parties committed deficiency in service and also committed unfair trade practise. 9. Opposite parties did not file any counter-affidavit by way of evidence. 10. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf appellants that complainant was suffering from pre-existing illness at the time of obtaining insurance policy and on this ground appeal filed by insurance company be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Insurance company did not adduce any evidence by way of affidavit in support of version as required under section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. We have also carefully perused annexure OP-3 issued by S.P.S. Apollo Hospital placed on record. There is recital in annexure OP-3 that complainant was hospitalized in S.P.S. Apollo Hospital w.e.f. 18.06.2012 to 28.06.2012 vide IP No.12/5892. There is further recital in annexure OP-3 that complainant was suffering from dyspnoea on exertion and hypertension at the time of admission. There is further recital in annexure OP-3 that duration of dyspnoea on exertion and hypertension was mentioned by patient since two years. There is further recital in annexure OP-3 that duration of illness was given by patient in history and exact duration could not be ascertained as patient had not submitted any previous document in this regard. Insurance company did not file affidavit of Dr. Gurcharan Avasthi by way of evidence who has issued certificate annexure OP-3. There is further recital in annexure OP-3 that duration of illness was given by patient in history and exact duration could not be ascertained as patient had not submitted any previous document in this regard. Insurance company did not file affidavit of Dr. Gurcharan Avasthi by way of evidence who has issued certificate annexure OP-3. It is well settled law that there is difference between pleadings and proof of facts. It is also well settled law that fact is proved by way of affidavit under section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. In the present case insurance company did not adduce any evidence relating to illness of complainant by way of adducing affidavit in evidence. Certificate given by S.P.S. Apollo Hospital is contradictory in nature. In the certificate Dr. Gurcharan Avasthi has specifically mentioned that exact date of illness could not be ascertained. It is well settled law that opinion about illness is always given in quasi-judicial proceedings as per certificate given by medical officer relating to illness in positive manner. In the present case Dr. Gurcharan Avasthi has specifically mentioned in positive manner that exact duration of illness could not be ascertained. In view of recital in certificate that exact duration of illness could not be ascertained by medical officer State Commission is of opinion that insurance company has committed deficiency in service by way of repudiating claim of complainant. It is well settled law that certificate of medical illness cannot be given by a medical officer simply on the oral version of patient. It is also well settled law that certificate of illness is always given by medical officer after personally examining the patient strictly in accordance with medical jurisprudence. Even certify copy of admission form submitted by complainant in Apollo Hospital relating to tenure of illness not placed on record by insurance company. It is well settled law that burden to prove concealment of ailment lies upon insurer. See 2002 (2) CPC 205 Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. v. Smt. Roshni Devi. See AIR 2001 SC 549 Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others v. Smt. Asha Goel . It is well settled law that in quasi-judicial proceedings findings relating to medical ailment cannot be given simply upon hearsay evidence of patient but should be given upon detail medical report. See 1999(2) CPC 178 Punjab Surjan Singh v. Life Insurance Corporation of India . It is well settled law that in quasi-judicial proceedings findings relating to medical ailment cannot be given simply upon hearsay evidence of patient but should be given upon detail medical report. See 1999(2) CPC 178 Punjab Surjan Singh v. Life Insurance Corporation of India . In view of above stated facts it is held that order of learned District Forum did not warrant any interference from State Commission. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2: Final Order 11. In view of findings upon point No.1 appeal is dismissed. Order of Learned District Forum is affirmed. Certificate given by medical officer namely Dr. Gurcharan Avasthi annexure OP-3 will for part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.