JUDGMENT T.S.P.Moosath, Judicial Member - The complainant in CC.No.184/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redrssal Forum, Ernakulam, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which the complaint was filed by him was dismissed. 2. The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows. The complainant had joined in a medi claim policy with the opposite party insurer on 18.07.2011 and the policy was continuing regularly updated. As per the policy, the complainant was entitled to get back the hospital expenses up to Rs 2, 00, 000/-. He was admitted at Medical Mission Hospital, Kolencherry on 12.09.2014 and was discharged on 14.09.2014, for treatment of sinusitis /HTN type and peripheral vertigo. He was again admitted in the same hospital and was discharged on 01.10.2014 due to disc prolapse C5 and C6. Again he had undergone treatment at Nambiaparambil Ayurveda Panchakarma Hospital, Kaliyar, Idukki and was discharged on 15.10.2014. Thereafter, on 03.11.2014, he was admitted at Amrita Institute of Medical Science, Ernakulam for further treatment and was discharged on 10.11.2014. The total medical expenses in all these hospitals came to Rs 56, 885/-. He submitted the claim forms to the opposite party in time. But the opposite party had rejected all the claims. The complainant was not having any disease at the time of taking the policy. The opposite party could reject the claim only if the disease pre-existing within two years, was not disclosed. The petitioner took the policy on 18.07.2011. The petitioner is entitled to realize the medical bills form the opposite party. The rejection of the claim is deficiency in service. 3. The opposite parties filed version raising the following contentions. Complainant had approached the forum with unclean hands, by suppressing material facts. The complainant was under a legal obligation to disclose all material facts correctly, honestly and truthfully to the insurer at the time of obtaining the policy. Having failed to do so the contract is rendered void. Insurance being a contract in good faith, the parties to the contract were bound to disclose the true facts. The parties are also governed by the terms and conditions of the policy. The first claim of the complainant was pertaining to the hospital treatment during 12.09.2014 to 14.09.2014 at MOSC hospital, Kolencherry. He was diagnosed of sinusitis, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes and peripheral vertigo. The parties are also governed by the terms and conditions of the policy. The first claim of the complainant was pertaining to the hospital treatment during 12.09.2014 to 14.09.2014 at MOSC hospital, Kolencherry. He was diagnosed of sinusitis, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes and peripheral vertigo. That claim is not admissible since the admission in the hospital was only for diagnosis. As per the terms of the policy, expenses incurred at the hospital primarily for diagnostic purposes and not followed by active treatment is not reimbursable. The second claim pertaining to the period from 29.09.2001 to 01.10.2014 in the very same hospital showed that the complainant was diagnosed of left side C5-C6 disc prolapse. That claim was rejected on the ground that there was suppression of facts in the proposal. The complainant was admitted at Medical Mission Hospital, Kolencherry on 07.12.2010 to 17.10.2010 and was diagnosed of left C5-C6 disc prolapse, and he underwent physiotherapy. The complainant had submitted incorrect information about his health status and concealed material information. Hence that claim was rejected. The third claim and fourth claim are also therefore liable to be dismissed and hence was rejected. The complaint is therefore sought to be dismsied. 4. The complainant field affidavit and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on his side. Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the complainant has preferred the present appeal. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant had taken a Health Saver policy from the opposite parties and the policy was continuing regularly updated. Ext.A1 is the copy of the policy certificate issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. According to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy he is entitled to get hospital expenses up to Rs 2, 00, 000/-. The complainant has submitted four claims before the opposite parties for a total amount of Rs 56, 885/- regarding his treatment in the hospitals. But the opposite party rejected all the claims. The complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, challenging the rejection of his claims by the opposite parties. The complainant has submitted four claims before the opposite parties for a total amount of Rs 56, 885/- regarding his treatment in the hospitals. But the opposite party rejected all the claims. The complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, challenging the rejection of his claims by the opposite parties. The opposite parties contended that they had rejected the claims of the complainant for valid reasons and as per the terms and conditions of the policy complainant is not entitled to get the amount, claimed by him. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The district forum found that the rejection of the claims of the complainant by the opposite parties is justifiable and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint. The complainant has filed the appeal challenging that order. 7. It is a well settled principle, as laid down by the various decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court that an insurance policy is to be construed strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy document which is a binding contract between the parties and nothing can be added or substracted by giving a different meaning to the words mentioned therein. The parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. In the present case the complainant is an educated person. So he was supposed to read each and every terms and conditions of the policy and it has to be considered that he had read and understood the proposal form carefully before signing the same. So he cannot later plead ignorance, about the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the claims of the complainant was rejected on the basis of Clause 8 of the policy which deals with " Exclusion for hospitalization insurance benefits". 8. The first claim submitted by the complainant before the opposite parties is for Rs 4532/-, regarding his impatient treatment from 12.09.2014 to 14.09.2014 at MOSC, MCH, Kolencherry. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the claims of the complainant was rejected on the basis of Clause 8 of the policy which deals with " Exclusion for hospitalization insurance benefits". 8. The first claim submitted by the complainant before the opposite parties is for Rs 4532/-, regarding his impatient treatment from 12.09.2014 to 14.09.2014 at MOSC, MCH, Kolencherry. The said claim was rejected by the opposite parties as per Clause 8 (17) of the policy where in it is stated the insurance company was not be liable to make any payment under the policy in respect of any expenses incurred by any insured person in connection with the expenses incurred at hospital primarily for the evaluation / diagnostic purposes wherein such tests are possible to be carried on outpatient basis and which is not followed by active treatment or intervention during the period of hospitalization. So it can be seen that the rejection of the said claim by the opposite parties is justifiable. The second claim made by the complainant before the opposite parties is for Rs 17, 536/-, regarding his impatient treatment from 25.09.2014 5to 01.10.2014 at MOSC, MCH Hospital, Kolencherry. The treatment was for C5, C6, disc prolapse. The said claim was rejected by the opposite parties as per Clause 8 (5) of the policy wherein it is stated that the insurance company shall not be liable to make for payment in the policy in respect of any expenses incurred by in insured person in connection with the pre existing condition unless stated in the proposal form. It is stated as "Pre-existing condition unless stated in the proposal form and specifically accepted by the company, and endorsed thereon. Pre-existing condition means a condition for which, prior to the policy commencement data, or policy revival date, the insured person had signs or symptoms of any disease or injury which would have caused any ordinary prudent person to seek treatment, diagnosis or care or medical advice or treatment was recommended by or received from a medical practitioner or the insured person had undergone medical tests or investigations. Any investigation or treatment for any disease, disorder, complication or ailment arising out of or connected with the pre-existing disease shall be considered part of that pre-existing condition". Any investigation or treatment for any disease, disorder, complication or ailment arising out of or connected with the pre-existing disease shall be considered part of that pre-existing condition". Ext.B3 shows that the complainant had undergone inpatient treatment in the same hospital from 07.12.2010 to 17.12.2010 for the same complaint, C5, C6, disc prolapse. Further in Ext.B3 it is as " He is an old case of left C5, C6, disc prolapsed". In Ext.B1 proposal form submitted by the complainant in 2011, to take the insurance policy, he has not disclosed anything regarding the diagnosis of disc prolapse for which he obtained treatment. He had suppressed the contents of Ext.B3 treatment in Ext.B1 proposal form, even though there is a Clause in Ext.B1 regarding the impatient treatment in any hospital for two days or more for any illness within five years of the submission of the proposal form. The answer given by the complainant to the said question in the proposal form is "No". So the rejection of the claim on the ground of suppression of pre-existing disease by the opposite parties is justifiable. The third claim made by the complainant before the opposite parties was for Rs 21, 860/- regarding his impatient treatment from 04.10.2014 to 15.10.2014 at Nambiaparambil Ayurveda Panchakarama Hospital and Arthritis Diabetics Institute, Idukki. The fourth claim made by the complainant before the opposite party was for Rs 12, 957/- regarding his impatient treatment from 03.11.2014 to 10.11.2014 at the Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Kochi. He had taken ayurveda treatment. Those claims were rejected by the opposite parties as per clause 8 (20) of the policy since the ayurvedic treatment is excluded for claiming the insurance benefit as per the policy. So the rejection of those claims by the opposite parties is justifiable. In the light of the above discussed facts it can be seen that the opposite parties rejected the claims of the complainant on the basis of the terms and conditions of the policy, on the basis of the exclusion case in the policy. As found by the district forum the rejection of the claims of the complainant by the opposite parties is justifiable and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complaint was dismissed. As found by the district forum the rejection of the claims of the complainant by the opposite parties is justifiable and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complaint was dismissed. We find that there is no ground / reason to interfere with the finding and the order passed by the district forum. Hence the appeal is to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.