Haryana

StateCommission

A/499/2019

DINESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

VIPUL SHARMA

14 Sep 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.           499 of 2019

                                                Date of Institution:       22.05.2019

                                                Date of Decision:-        14.09.2020

 

 

Dinesh son of Sh. Jai Parkash, resident of House No.1871/31, Kamla Nagar, Rohtak

 

…..Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 237, 2^nd Floor, Sector 12, Karnal through its partner.

 

2.      HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, 8^th Floor, Lila Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai through its Manager.

……….Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

 

Present:-    Shri Vipul Sharma, counsel for the appellant

                    

 

                                                O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL)

 

          Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the miscellaneous application.

2.      The instant appeal has been filed by complainant-Dinesh for challenging the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal whereby complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed.

3.      While passing the impugned order, learned District Forum held that the contention of the opposite parties about the complainant being in drunken condition had force.  In case the complainant was not in a drunken condition, he would have supplied his treatment record including the MLR but he failed to supply the same inspite of written request of the opposite parties which meant that there might be some wrong on the part of the complainant.

4.      When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 14.10.2019, learned counsel for the appellant was directed to place on record copy of medico legal report as well as of the treatment record of the complainant.  Accordingly, the hearing of the appeal was adjourned.  The appeal was thereafter taken up for hearing on 20.01.2020, on which date, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for more time for placing on record the aforementioned medical record but no such attempt was made by the appellant to place on record the relevant medical record.

5.      Today, when the appeal is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant stated that he is not in a position to place on record the copy of medico legal report as well as of the treatment record of the complainant and as such, the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution.

6.      In view of the above, the appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.  

 

 

 

14.09.2020

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

U.K