STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
Date of Instituion:15.05.2023
Date of final hearing:25.05.2023
Date of pronouncement: 25.05.2023
Revision Petition No.48 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
1. Star Health and Allied Insurance CO. Ltd. Registered and Corporate Office 1, New Tank Street, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034 through its authorized signatory.
2. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, through its Branch Manager, # 1st Floor, 5, Prem Nagar, Near Post Office, Prem Nagar, Ambala City-134003 ....Revisionists/opposite parties.
Through counsel Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
Versus
Ms. Geetu Jain, W/o Late Shri Anish Jain S/o Shri Ramesh Jain, R/o 2586, Subhas Park Road, behind S.D. Vidya School, Ambala Cantt.
….Respondent/complainant.
CORAM: S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.
Present:- Mr. Ravinder Arora, counsel for the revisionists.
O R D E R
PER: S.P. SOOD JUDICIAL MEMBER:
2. Present revision petition has been filed by the revisionists against the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (vide which the defence of present revisionists, who were opposite parties was struck off.
3. Before adverting upon to discuss merits of this petition some facts acting in the background must be looked into. It appears that the complainant had purchased Medi-claim policy i.e Family Health Optima Insurance Plan and in the said plan the whole family including the complaint were covered for medical benefits w.e.f. 08.07.2015 and the same was renewed subsequently till 08.07.2021. Further, in the month of January, 2022 the husband of the complainant had some urinary problem, abdominal pain and fever and was thus admitted in Alchemist Hospital Panchkula and Doctor diagnosed that the husband of the complainant was suffering from hepatic ancepalopath. Hence, the complainant lodged the claim with the revisionists/opposite parties for cashless facility which was rejected on 08.01.2022 and therefore complainant lodged the claim with the revisionists/opposite parties but the same was also rejected vide letter dated 28.03.2022. Thereafter, the husband of the complainant again had to be admitted in hospital and ultimately, he died away on 08.06.2022. This is how complainant approached the district Commission for claim amount. Notice was issued following which opposite parties herein revisionists appeared but could not file their written version within 45 days and finally defence was struck off.
4. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, revisionists-opposite parties have preferred the present revision petition.
5. The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Ravinder Arora, learned counsel for the revisionists. With his kind assistance the entire revision petition had also been properly perused and examined.
6. While unfolding his contention Mr. Ravinder Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that complainant-respondent herein has filed a consumer complaint bearing No.300 of 2022 before learned District Commission, Ambala. Thereafter, the complainant was fixed for arguments for 17.08.2022. But on 17.08.2022 respondent filed an application for amendment of the complaint which was allowed and respondent was directed to file amended complaint. Notice of the amended complaint was issued to the opposite parties for 20.10.2022 and on 20.10.2022 counsel for the revisionists/opposite parties appeared and filed power of attorney. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 16.11.2022 and on that day present revisionist/opposite parties requested for adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 03.01.2023 subject to the cost of 200/- for filing of written version. But on 03.01.2023 the present revisionists/opposite parties could not do the needful and learned District Commission again adjourned it for 19.01.2023 for filing of written version along with cost of Rs.200/-more. However, on 19.01.2023 the counsel for the revisionists/opposite parties filed the written version along with cost to the complaint. But, on the same day the complainant has also filed an application for striking off the defence of the present revisionists/opposite parties as they have not filed written version within 45 days from the date of service of the notice. The learned District Consumer Commission allowed the said application and passed the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 vide which the defence of present revisionists/opposite parties was struck off.
7. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Ravinder Arora, counsel for the revisionists/opposite parties has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of the law. As per him, by the impugned order, the DCDRC, Ambala, wrongly and illegally allowed the application of the complainant and struck off the defence of the present revisionists/opposite parties. It is also pertinent to mentioned here that district commission Ambala has itself granted the time for fining the written statement and the same was accepted by the complainant without any protest and even the cost imposed by district commission was also accepted by the complainant. Hence, learned counsel for the present revisionists-opposite parties prayed that the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by district consumer commission, Ambala may please be set aside and permission may kindly be granted to file written statement.
8. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the application seeking striking off the defence of present revisionist/opposite parties was filed on 19.01.2023 by the present respondent/complainant. While disposing of the above-mentioned application, learned District Commission has observed that after notice of this complaint was issued originally to the opposite parties, later have appeared before the said District Commission on 20.10.2022. Needless to say that it was also duly observed that the said notice along with copy of the complainant and complete set of documents accompanying therewith was also supplied on the basis there of the present revisionists has caused their appearance on 20.10.2022. After this development this complaint was adjourned for 16.11.2022 directing the present revisionists/opposite parties to submit their written version and again thereafter adjourned to 13.12.2022. But on both these occasions no such written version was submitted by the present revisionists and as a result learned District Commission further adjourned it for 03.01.2023 along with a cost of Rs.200/- on this day neither the written version was filed nor the cost imposed on the previous date of hearing was paid and faced with this situation learned District Commission further imposed a cost of Rs.200/- and directed the revisionists/opposite parties to file written version on 19.01.2023. It was only on 19.01.2023 that the written version was submitted and cost was also tendered. But again, on the very same day, the present complainant/respondent has also submitted an application seeking striking the defence of revisionists/opposite parties on account of their having already failed to submit written version within 30 days along with 15 days of grace period which has already expired on 05.12.2022. Although, revisionists have raised several objections regarding the respondent/complainant having not served them the copies of the requisite documents, but if that would have been the case then why any such grouse was not raised by the revisionists before the learned district commission whenever this case remained pending for hearing on as many as four occasions. This shows perhaps all this hue and cry has been raised by the revisionists simply for the sake of raising the objections in this regard. But in-fact there was no truth in the same. Otherwise, learned district commission has passed and exhaustive order taking the shelter of observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made in SLPNo.31622/2022-Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kutumb Welfare Society Regd and others decided on 04.11.2022 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5SCC:757. There is nothing erroneous apparent on the fact of the impugned order.
9. Keeping in view the past conduct of the revisionists/opposite parties, this court does not see any reason as to why the impugned order should be set aside as the same will defeat the very purpose of enacting the Consumer Protection Act with an ultimate aim of deciding the disputes quickly.
10. This revision petition has been disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to imparting substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27, 2002.
11. Application(s), if any, is disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.
12. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.
Pronounced on 25th May, 2023
J.Y.
S.P.Sood Judicial Member Addl. Bench
