Haryana

StateCommission

RP/68/2019

MAX BUPA HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHAN RAJ - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.THATAI

19 Aug 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  R.P. No.68   of 2019

 Date of Institution:09.08.2019

  Date  of  Decision:19.08.2019

 

1.      Max Bupa Health Ins. Co. Ltd.B-1/1-2, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110004 through Ms. Chandrika Bhattacharaya, Chief Manager (Legal).

2.      Ashish Mehrotra, Managing Director, Max Bupa Health Ins. co. Ltd., B-1/1-2, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110004 through Ms. Chandrika Bhatacharaya, Chief Manger (Legal).

3.      Max Bupa Health Ins. Co. Ltd. SCO No.55-57, Sector 8-C Chandigarh through Ms. Chandrika Bhatacharaya, Chief Manager (Legal).

…..Petitioners

Versus

 

Dhan Raj s/o Sh. Sh.Brij Lal Aggarwal R/o H.No.130-A, Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana.

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member

 

                   

Present:-    Mr.S.C.Thatai Advocate for the petitioners.

 

                                                 ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  04.06.2019 in complaint No.235 of 2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Panchkula vide which   O.P Nos.2 to 4 were  proceeded ex parte.

2.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.S.C.Thatai, the learned counsel for the petitioners. With his kind assistance the original file including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  revisionist had also been properly perused and examined.

3.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr.S.C.Thatai, the learned counsel for the revisionists that   petitioners company had to go to out of India on 04.06.2019, he inadvertently could not appear on the said date. The non-appearance of the O.P. Nos.2 to 4 was neither intentional, even the case was at initial stage for service of O.Ps.  Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that  ex parte proceeding dated 04.06.2019 may kindly be set aside .

4.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex parte proceeding was initiated against O.P.Nos.2 to 4, but, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned parties before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionist-O.P.Nos.2 to 4 are afforded an opportunity to defend itself before the learned District Forum, so in these circumstances, ex parte  proceeding dated 04.06.2019 initiated against  O.P.Nos.2 to 4-petitioners are 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.

 

5.      The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum, Panchkula on  02.10.2019 for further proceedings.

 

 

August 19th, 2019                          Ram Singh Chaudhary,                

                                                          Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

S.K.