West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

MA/39/2022

Chandana Bijali - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and 3 others - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Kumar Singh

06 Sep 2022

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata - I (North)
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
Web-site - confonet.nic.in
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/39/2022
( Date of Filing : 12 Jul 2022 )
In
Complaint Case No. CC/192/2021
 
1. Chandana Bijali
W/O Swapan Bijali, Mondalpara, Village - Achintya Nagar, P.O.- Raidighi Kuemuri, S.O - Mathurapur-II, P.S.- Pathar Protima, Pin - 743383.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Branch Manager, Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and 3 others
(GST No. - 19AACCM3201E170), 15A, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Continental Chamber Building, 2nd & 3rd Floor, P.S. - Hare Street, Kolkata - 700001.
2. The Manager/CEO, Max Life Insurace Co. Ltd.
419, Bhai Mohan Singh Nagar, Railmajra, Tehsil Balachaur, Dist. - Nawanshahar, Punjab - 144533.
3. The Superintendent Of Hospital
M. R. Bangur Hospital, 241, Deshpran Sasmal Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata - 700033.
4. Tamal Biswas
S/O Deceased Policy Holder Tapas Kumar Biswas, B/262, Survey Park Cooperative Housing, Satoshpur, Kolkata - 700075.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. Firoza Khatoon PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sailaranjan Das MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Maitreyee Chakraborty MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 06 Sep 2022
Final Order / Judgement

Order No. 2                      Dt. 06/09/2022

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant served copy of MA Application upon opposite party nos.1 and 2 and representative of opposite party no.3 namely Mr. Kartick Chandra Shaw (Head Clerk).

Misc. Application is taken up for hearing.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the opposite party no.4 is not a necessary party to this case. Moreover, notice could not be served upon opposite party no.4. So, the name of opposite party no.4 be expunged from the cause title of the complaint.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 raised objection.

I find from the record of CC/192/2021  that the complainant is nominee of the policy holder Tapas Kumar Biswas (since deceased). The Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the opposite parties for releasing the sum assured in her favour as she is the nominee  in the policy.

In our view the opposite party no.4 being son of the deceased policy holder is a necessary party to the case. So, the prayer for expunging the name of opposite party no.4 from the cause title of the complaint stands rejected.

Thus Misc. Application is disposed of.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Firoza Khatoon]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sailaranjan Das]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Maitreyee Chakraborty]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.