Haryana

StateCommission

RP/29/2021

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANJU GROVER AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SATPAL DHAMIJA

25 Oct 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision Petition No.29   of 2021

 Date of Institution:13.10.2021

  Date  of  Decision:25.10.2021

 

1.      The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Retd. Office: Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali road, New Delhi, 110002, through its Manager/Representative.

 

2.      The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office-II, SCO 48-49, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Representative.

 

3.      The Oriental  Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: 2366/2, Ist Floor, Mariwala town, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Representative.

 

4.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: 325, Sector 9, Second Floor, Panchkula, through its Manager/Representative.

 

All the petitioners through their authorized signatory, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional office-II, SCO 48-49, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

…..Petitioners

Versus

 

1.      Anju Grover, age 52 W/o Late Sh.Harish Kumar, R/o H.No.642, Sector 26, Panchkula.

 

2.      PNB Oriental royal Mediclaim Chandigarh circle, SCO 31-42, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh (Agent/Broker of Opp. No.1 to 3), through its Manager/Representative.

 

3.      Punjab National Bank, Sector 8, Panchkula (Agent/Broker of Opp No.1 to 3), through its Manager/Representative.

 

4.      M/s Medi Assist India, Shilpa Vidya, III Floor, 49, First Main road, Sarakki Industrial Layout, III Stage, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore (Third Party Agent of Opp No.1 to 3), through its Manager/Representative.

 

5.      M/s Raksha Health Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd., Commerce House, 5^th Floor, 7-Race Course Road, Indore-452001 (Third Party Agent of Opp. No.1 to 3), through its Manager/Representative.

 

6.      Medanta The Medicity Hospital, Sector 38, Rajeev Chowk, Gurgaon, Gurugram, Haryana, through its Manager /Representative.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:   Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

                   

Present:-    Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the petitioners.

 

                                                 ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY,  JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

         (The matter has been heard through virtual hearing).

 

Delay of 194 days in filing the revision petition is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated  04.06.2019 in complaint No.211 of 2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (In short ‘District Commission) vide which O.P No.1 to 4-petitioners was  proceeded against ex parte.

3.      The brief facts given rise to the revision petition are that the complainant filed consumer complaint No.211 of 2019 against the petitioners-insurance company, which was fixed for appearance on 04.06.2019. The insurance company telephonically informed the counsel that CC No.210 of 2019 titled as Anju Grover Vs. OIC and others was pending for 04.06.2019.  Upon intimation, it was found on the website that CC No.210 of 2019 did not pertain to petitioners insurance company as the title listed for hearing was Dr. Rajesh Bansal Vs. Postmaster.  There was some inadvertent mistake  in the notice received by the insurance company.  The father of the counsel was hospitalized during the period and was taking care of his father at home town at Hisar and he neither noted down the detail received on telephone in the case diary nor obtained the summons received by the insurance company. Ultimately, on 21.06.2019, father of the counsel died due to serious condition of his illness.  Counsel performed last rites and rituals and said case skipped from the mind and even could not visit the office of the insurance company due to shock of sudden demise of his father.  Thereafter, the mother-in-law of the counsel also died on 05.12.2019 and again the office of the counsel remained disturbed for 2-3 months and could not communicate with the insurance company. Due to pandemic of Covid-19 everything was shut down. On 03.08.2021, the counsel received mail from the insurance company regarding status of the case. Thereafter counsel visited the office of insurance company and obtained copy of the notice in which CC No.210 of 2019 was mentioned. The counsel visited the premises of District Commission Panchkula and found that actual complaint Number was 211 of 2019 and found that same was listed on 10.08.2021 and insurance company had already been proceeded ex parte vide order dated 04.06.2019.  In the interest of justice, the ex parte proceedings may be set aside and petitioner-insurance company may be allowed to file their reply and lead their evidence accordingly.

4.      The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Satpal Dhamija, the learned counsel for the petitioners. With his kind assistance the file has been properly perused and examined.

5.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr.Satpal Dhamija, the learned counsel for the revisionist that the insurance company telephonically informed the counsel that CC No.210 of 2019 titled as Anju Grover Vs. OIC and others was pending for 04.06.2019 and upon intimation, it was found on the website that CC No.210 of 2019 did not pertain to petitioners-insurance company as the title listed for hearing was Dr. Rajesh Bansal Vs. Postmaster.  Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was some inadvertent mistake  in the notice received by the insurance company.  Further argued that the father of the counsel was hospitalized during the period and was taking care of his father at home town at Hisar and he neither noted down the detail received on telephone in the case diary nor obtained the summons received by the insurance company. Ultimately, on 21.06.2019, father of the counsel died due to serious condition of his illness.  Learned counsel further argued that mother-in-law of the counsel also died on 05.12.2019 and thereafter again the office of the counsel remained disturbed for 2-3 months. Learned counsel further argued that due to pandemic of Covid-19 everything was shut down.  The counsel further argued that he visited the office of insurance company and obtained copy of the notice in which CC  No.210 of 2019 was mentioned.  The counsel further argued that  he visited the premises of District Commission Panchkula and found that actual complaint Number was 211 of 2019 and found that same was listed on 10.08.2021 and insurance company had already been proceeded ex parte vide order dated 04.06.2019. Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that  ex parte proceeding dated 04.06.2019 be set aside.

6.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex parte proceedings were initiated against O.P No.1 to 4.  It is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned party before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionists-O.P No.1 to 4 are afforded an opportunity to defend the complaint before the learned District Commission.  

In the considered opinion of this Commission and whatever the facts have been mentioned in the revision petition by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as medical documents placed on record, the counsel for the petitioner is quite genuine and  since two important family members  i.e. father of the counsel and mother-in-law of the counsel had already been expired. On this analogy, the act of the counsel appears to be genuine and it was due to unavoidable circumstances.  Hence in these circumstances, ex parte  proceedings recorded on 04.06.2019 against  O.P No.1 to 4-petitioners stands set aside.  Revision Petition is allowed.  Let the petitioners be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

7.      The revisionist is directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Panchkula on 24.11.2021 for further proceedings, in accordance with law.

8.      This revision petition has been disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to imparting substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. In this regard, reliance can be safely placed on a Division Bench judgement 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.

9.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Commission, Panchkula.

 

 

October 25th, 2021                                       Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                                  Judicial Member                                 

S.K.(Pvt.Secy)