Haryana

Karnal

CC/613/2022

Ved Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Care Health Insurance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjiv Kamboj

27 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint.No.613 of 2022

                                                          Date of instt.31.10.2022

                                                          Date of Decision: 27.08.2024

 

Ved Parkash Mittal aged about 68 years son of Shri Tilak Raj, resident of H.No.16-A, Avtar Singh Colony, PUrshotam Garden, Karnal.

          ...…Complainant.

                                        Versus

Care Health Insurance Limited (Formerely) known as Religare Health Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at 354, Mugal Canal, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                   ....Opposite party.

  Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh………President. 

                Mrs. Sarvjeet Kaur…………Member

                               

Present:   Shri Sanjiv Kamboj, counsel for the complainant. .

                Shri Ashwani Kumar Popli, counsel for the OPs.

                                                         

               Today the case is fixed evidence of complainant, subject to second last opportunities. No evidence is present. Learned counsel for the complainant filed an application for impleading the legal heirs of deceased Ved Parkash on record and to allow the applicant to contest the complaint. Copy supplied.

                Arguments heard.

                On perusal of the application, it reveals that neither the same has been filed by the legal heirs of the complainant nor the same is supported by an affidavit. Further, death certificate of complainant is also not attached with the said application to ascertain the actual date, month and year of the death of the complainant.

                The complainant has already availed numerous opportunities for leading his evidence but failed to conclude the same and now has filed the present application, just to seek adjournment. It seems that learned counsel for the complainant is not interested to pursue with the present complaint. The present complaint pertains to the year 2022, hence, further adjournments for the same purpose would not be justified and would waste the precious time of this Commission.  

                Hence, in view the above facts the present complaint is hereby dismissed. However, the legal heirs of the complainant are at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action, if so desired. In view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the legal heirs of complainant would be entitled to get the benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such before the competent Court of Law. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the flle be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Dated:  27.08.2024.         

                         President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                (Saravjeet Kaur) 

                      Member