Date of Filing:  22.10.2019.                                              Date of Disposal: 11.05.2022.   

Complainant                : Nilufa Khatun, W/O Kasem Sekh, Vill. Bijra Amadpur, P.S. Memari, Dist.

   Burdwan, Pin 713154.

-VERSUS -

Opposite Party                        :1. HDFC ERGO G.I. C Ltd. Regd. Office at- 165-166 Backbay

     Reclamation(1^st Floor), H.T  Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

                                    2. The Officer-in-Charge, HDFC ERGO G.I.C Ltd, having office at 5^th Floor, 

Tower-1, Steller IT Park, C-25, Sector-62, Noida-201301.

3. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd, Memari Branch, Holding No. 12,  

New Bus Stand, P.O.& P.S. Memari, Dist. Burdwan, Pin-713146.

Present                                   : Mohammad Muizzuddeen             -Hon’ble President.

                                                : Smt. Lipika Ghosh                          - Hon’ble Member.

Appeared for the Complainant           : Sri Tamal Dey                       Ld. Advocate.

Appeared for the Opposite Party        : Sri  Sourav Kumar Mitra       Ld. Advocate.            

                                                            :

Order No. 44 Date: 11. 05.2022.

            Ld. Advocate for the complainant files hazira. No hazira has been filed from the side of the OPs.

Today is fixed for passing order. The record is taken up for passing order.

            On 22.10.2019 the OP HDFC ERGO G.I.C. Ltd. has filed a petition stating that after filing the Written Version some better particulars or evidence has been traced out. The OP filed additional Written Version wherein the OP has stated about the treatment of the complainant under Dr. Puneeth, CS and filed the copy of the prescription or initially Patient Assessment Sheet wherefrom it was revealed that the insurer had been suffering from Holocranial Head-ace associated with symptoms for the past three years. For providing of the same those are required to be called for from the concerned Medical Institution along with some questionnaire. The documents have been mentioned in the Schedule A below and the questionnaire has been mentioned in Schedule B below. The name and address of the institution has been mentioned in Schedule C below. So, it is necessary to pass appropriate order by calling for the documents as mentioned in the Schedule A below and the questionnaire has been mentioned in Schedule B below. The name and address of the institution has been mentioned in Schedule C below.

Under the above facts and circumstances the OP HDFC ERGO G.I.C. Ltd. prays for passing necessary order by calling for documents as mentioned in the Schedule A below along with answer of the questionnaire as mentioned in Schedule B below from the Medical Institution as mentioned in Schedule C below. This petition has been supported by an affidavit.

            The complainant did not file any Written Objection against the said petition being No. MA-77/2019. At the time of hearing he raised strong objection and submitted that after completion of evidence of both sides, Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that after filing of evidence-on-affidavit by OP Nos. 1 & 2 , she could not get any chance to file any questionnaire in the evidence of OP Nos. 1 & 2 to complete their evidence and even the Investigator of them as mentioned in the additional Written Statement and evidence of them has not been examined as witness including his report , as the Investigator made some discussions with Dr. Puneeth, CS as revealed in their evidence and in the petition. Upon this background, she prays for rejection of M.A. Case being No. 77/2019.

            Perused the case record including the additional Written Statement, evidence-on-affidavit of OP Nos. 1& 2 who have filed this M.A. Case and the contents in the petition of M.A Case. It appears that both the parties have adduced evidence-on-affidavit in this case. From the additional Written Statement, it is found that the Investigator of OP Nos. 1 & 2 had some discussions with Dr. Puneeth, CS regarding the patient’s history revealed in the discharge summary issued by Neuro Foundation. From the evidence-on-affidavit of OP Nos. 1 & 2,   it is revealed that the Investigator had discussions about history of the patient with Dr. Puneet, C.S and accordingly he filed this M.A. case, calling for the said documents with two questionnaires. It is clear from the record that the complainant could not get any chance to put or to file any questionnaire to the evidence-on-affidavit of OP Nos. 1 & 2 for completion of their evidence and after competition of evidence of OP Nos. 1 & 2. The next chance is given to the OPs for adducing further evidence as per rules and procedures of evidence. Even the OP Nos. 1 & 2 did not adduce any evidence of their Investigator to prove the report submitted by him. That apart, the discharge summary issued by Neuro Foundation discloses the case history. The documentary evidence is sufficient and believable more than the oral evidence and the principle of law is oral evidence may lie but documentary evidence cannot lie. There is liberty to both the parties to make arguments along with the oral evidence and documentary evidence in this regard.

            Under the above facts and circumstances, we find no such material to allow the petition dt. 22.10.2019 being M.A. 77/2019.

            Hence, it is

                                                                    ORDERED

That the M.A. Case No. 77/2019 be and the same is rejected on contest but without any cost.

     Dictated & corrected by me.

                      President

     D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.

                     Member                                                                    President

     D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.                                     D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman