Date of Filing: 30.12.2013                                                  Date of Final Order: 28.08.2015

Order No. 29 dated 28.08.2015.

The petition dated 23.04.15 filed by one Shri Gostha Behari Hui for amendment at the complainant/substitution of his name along with written objection filed by the O.P. No.4, National Insurance Company is taken up for passing order.

Other Ops have contested the application without filing any formal objection.

The present case has been filed by Smt. Moumita Hui D/O. Shri Gostha Behari Hui alleging medical negligence against the Ops regarding the treatment of her father.

In her complaint, she has claimed herself “I am the Complainant” and no where it has been described that she has been filing the present case on behalf of her father Shri  Gostha Behari Hui.  There is also nothing to show that she has been authorized by her father to file the present case.   

Shri Gostha Behari Hui, father of the present Complainant Smt. Moumita Hui has filed the present application for substitution of his name in place of his daughter.   In Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there is provision of substitution of the Complainant.

Section 13 (7) of CP Act runs as follows:

“In the event of death of a Complainant who is a consumer or of the Opposite Party against whom the complaint has been filed, the provisions of Order XXII of the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to the plaintiff and the defendant shall be construed as reference to a Complainant or the Opposite Party, as the case may be.”

So, it is clear that in case of death of the Complainant /Opposite Party, his legal heirs may be substituted as Complainant/OP and Order XXII of Civil Procedure Court shall apply in such case. But in the present case, Smt. Madhumita  Hui is still alive and her father Gostha Behari Hui has not been claiming his substitution as legal heir of  Madhumita Hui.  So, Section 13(7) of CP Act, 1986 and Order XXII of Civil Procedure Court is not applicable in this case.

In these juncture, we think that the present application is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.

We further find that as the Complainant Smt. Madhumita Hui is not a beneficiary of the case and she has no locustandi to file this case. So, the present case is liable to be dismissed. However, considering the peculiar situation for ends of justice, an opportunity may be given to Shri Gostha Behari Hui to file a fresh case on same cause of action.

ORDER

Hence, it is ordered that,

The petition dated 23.04.15 is hereby considered and rejected and the case No. DF-156/13 be and the same is dismissed. Shri Goshtha Behari Hui is at liberty to file fresh case before this Forum on same cause of action.

Dictate and corrected by me.

                 President                                                          President

   District Consumer Disputes                            District Consumer Disputes 

Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar                      Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar

                  Member                                                            Member                                   

   District Consumer Disputes                            District Consumer Disputes                                      

Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar                      Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar