Haryana

StateCommission

RP/18/2024

TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ANR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARCHANA - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN THATAI

07 Oct 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision Petition No.18  of 2024

 Date of Filing:05.03.2024

Date of Pronouncement: 07.10.2024

 

1.      TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager/Director/Authorized Signatory, 14^th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013.

2.      TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager/Authorized signatory # 83, Devi Lal Shopping Complex, First Floor, Opposite ABN Amro Bank, G.T.Road, Panipat through Sh.Harsimran Singh, Assistant Vice President (Legal) Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.2939-2940, 2^nd Floor, Sector-22-C, Chandigarh.

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

Archana aged about 39 years W/o Late Sh.;Vinit Gupta R/o House NO.47, Near Ankur Hospital, Bishan Sarup Colony, Panipat.

…..Respondent

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Sh. S.C.Thatai, counsel for the petitioners.

                   Sh.Ajay Bansal, counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

           

          This revision petition is preferred against the order dated  05.03.2024 passed  in Consumer Complaint No.158 of 2021 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat, whereby application for summoning medical record of deceased Sh.Vinit Gupta was dismissed.

2.      The arguments were advanced by Sh.S.C.Thatai, counsel for the petitioners and Sh.Ajay Bansal, counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the revision file has been properly perused and examined.

3.      Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that; impugned order dated 05.02.2024 passed by District Consumer Commission cannot sustain at all factually and legally. Continuing further learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that medical record of deceased Sh.Vinit Gupta is quite relevant to arrive at the right adjudication of the dispute on merits and hence, the impugned order  deserves to be set aside and application filed by the petitioner company to summon the medical record which already stood allowed  is to be given effect to.

4.      On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent argued that  the complaint was already fixed for arguments on 14.07.2023, 07.08.2023, 19.09.2023, 16.10.2023, 26.10.2023, 23.11.2023, 07.12.2023 and 26.12.2023, but, revisionist company did not argue the matter. The OPs just wanted to prolong the matter under one pretext or the other and the application for summoning medical record of deceased Vinit Gupta was rightly dismissed by the learned District Consumer Commission.

5.      Record reveals that the application in question is dated 26.10.2023. However, the learned Commission has noticed it to be filed on 26.12.2023 only and thereafter the learned District Commission directed the then complainant to file reply thereto on 19.01.2024.  However prior thereto the same application as allowed by the learned District Commission on 07.12.2023 itself. As expected on both of these occasions present respondent-then complainant was duly represented by her authorized counsel Sh.Krishan Kumar Sharma. So the question arises when all this had already happened on 07.12.2023 then why the counsel for revisionist did not point out this development to the court on 19.01.2024. Even this would have prevented the court to have passed the impugned order on 05.02.2024, which of course can well said to have been passed due to sheer oversight.

6.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record and the golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the parties before deciding the case on merits as the District Consumer Commission being court of law and facts. Perusal of the file shows that it is relevant that medical record of deceased Sh.Vinit Gupta must be important material and will definitely help the court to decide the case on merits.  The complainant-respondent is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionists-O.Ps. is afforded effective opportunity to bring this record on the file. So in these circumstances, proceedings dated 05.02.2024 initiated against  O.Ps.-petitioners is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The application filed by the petitioner company to summon the medical record is also allowed. Let the petitioners be afforded an opportunity to appear on 24.10.2024 before the learned District Consumer Commission and one effective opportunity to bring this medical record of the deceased and thereafter the complaint be decided within the period of three months.

7.       The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Commission, Panipat on 24.10.2024 for further proceedings.

8.  

9.      A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

10.    File be consigned to record room.

 

7th October, 2024   Manjula        S.P.Sood                              T.P. S. Mann

                                    Member         Judicial Member                 President

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)