Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/19/114

FORTIS ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHNA KUMAR SHUKLA - Opp.Party(s)

SH.AJAY DUBEY

17 Feb 2021

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    REVISION PETITION NO. 114 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 26.02.2019 passed in C.C.No.212/2013 by the District Commission, Jabalpur)

 

FORTIS ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE IN ASSOCIATION

WITH JABALPUR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE.                                    …          PETITIONER.

 

Versus

                  

KRISHNA KUMAR SHUKLA & ORS.                                                                   …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE SHRI S.S.BANSAL                                        :      MEMBER   

 

                                      O R D E R

17.02.2021

 

          Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

            None for the respondent no. 1 and 3.

            Shri V. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :      

                   This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.212/2013 whereby the petitioner/opposite party no.3’s application for making Oriental Insurance Company Limited as opposite party in the complaint has been rejected on the ground that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is already party before the District Commission as opposite party no.1.

2.                     Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in his absence and no proper notice was given to the petitioner of the date of hearing and as such counsel for petitioner could not appear on the date of arguments on the said application and the impugned order came to be passed. 

3.                     According to the petitioner though the Oriental Insurance Company Limited was a party before the District Commission as made by the complainant as his insurer but his case was that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited was to be made as party as the petitioner is also insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited by an insurance policy and his branch

-2-

for his insurance policy need to be separately made party. The case of the petitioner was that as the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is also the insurer of the petitioner and as such if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited under a separate policy taken by the petitioner will have to indemnify the petitioner if the petitioner is found to be liable.  

4.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has supported the impugned order and has stated that since the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has already been made party before the District Commission, no question of allowing the prayer arises.

5.                     Having considered the rival contentions and having gone through the impugned order we are of the view that as the application for impleadment filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the District Commission in the absence of the petitioner and as such the petitioner was deprived of pointing out the fact that he wanted to implead the Oriental Insurance Company Limited as a party as it was the insurer for the petitioner.  Be that as it may. Without coming to the merits of the said application and without expressing any view we set-aside the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was deprived of oral arguments to substantiate his prayer.

6.                     Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 21.03.2021.  All contentions of the parties regarding said application are open. Setting aside the impugned order will not construed that we have expressed any opinion about the merits of the said application. The application be decided by the District Commission afresh in accordance with law.

7.                     With the aforesaid observations, the revision petition stands disposed of.

 

 

                  (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)               (S. S. Bansal)           

                                President                                      Member