No. 3/24.11.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. S. K. Das, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent through Miss S. Roychowdhury, the Ld. Advocate are present.  The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent files Vokalatnama today.

This appeal is by the Complainant against the judgement and order dated 22.06.2010 passed by the Forum below by dismissing the complaint.  The Complainant took one Hospitalisation and Domiciliary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy from the United India Insurance Company Limited, the sole O.P./Respondent herein.   Such hospitalization policy was taken by the Complainant for the benefit of self, his wife and mother.  The mother of the Complainant was admitted in a nursing home for implantation of permanent pacemaker.  The Complainant accordingly raised a claim for Rs.1,87,802/- for the medical expenses incurred by him for implantation of a pacemaker in his mother in the nursing home.  The said claim having been refused by the O.P. – Insurance Company, the aforesaid complaint case was filed by the Complainant.  The same has been dismissed by the Forum below by holding that the claim case was not maintainable as the mother of the Complainant has not filed the complaint case.  In coming to such conclusion the District Forum has referred to the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

We are of the view that the District Forum below has failed to appreciate the true scope of Section 12(1)(c) of the aforesaid Act.  It merely prescribes that one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all the consumers so interested can file a complaint case.  Here, the present Complainant is the holder of the hospitalization benefit policy.  Such policy covers the hospitalization expenses and/or medical expenses incurred by the policy holder for self, his wife and her mother.  Therefore, the relationship of consumer is in between the policy holder and the Insurer whereas the mother and the wife stood as the beneficiaries to the said policy and not as the consumers in relation to the Insurer.

Secondly, the District Forum has also dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Insurer has not been impleaded as a body corporate but through the particular Branch Manager of the Insurer situated at 240/A, Nutanchati, Bankura, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Bankura.

The Insurance Policy has been issued by the Body Corporate namely United India Insurance Company Limited.  The Branch Manager of the said Insurance Company has performed his function as an agent of the body Corporate by issuing the Policy to the Complainant.  As per provision of law all suits and proceedings against a Corporation must be instituted in the name of Corporation with its Corporate description.  We, therefore, hold that the findings so made in this regard was justified although the District Forum ought not to have dismissed the complaint on such ground which was a curable defect.  It ought to have given an opportunity to the Complainant to rectify the defects if appearing in the said complaint. 

Lastly, on the question of filing of evidence on Affidavit we also agree with the District Forum below that evidence in Chief or any other evidence by way of cross-examination should be filed separately by way of Affidavit and not by merely stating as has been stated in the pleadings.

For the aforesaid reasons we set aside the impugned judgement and order whereby the complaint case has been dismissed.  The complaint case is remanded back to the concerned Forum below with direction that the concerned Forum will proceed with the complaint case by giving an opportunity to the Complainant to remove the defects in the complaint so far as it relates to the impleadment of the Insurance Company is concerned.  Thereafter, the same shall be disposed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.