Dtd.19.08.2024                                            A/2131/2024

O R D E R

          BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by Complainant/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.22.05.2024 passed in CC/176/2024 on the file of 4^th Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru urban. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).
2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsel for Appellant.
3. Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be:

Whether the impugned order dtd.22.05.2024 passed in CC/176/2024 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo ?

4. The appeal is set to hear on admission. The Appellant herein is  aged about 71 years, a senior citizen and a woman had raised consumer complaint on 02.05.2024 before the District Commission and on 22.05.2024 District Commission passed impugned order by dismissing her  complaint at  threshold holding  complaint is not maintainable. It is this order is assailed in this appeal.
5. The Commission examined the grounds of appeal and impugned order and  found  there are four Ops, of whom OP.1 is Manager - Canara Bank, while OP.2 is Manager - Apollo Munich, OP.3 is Manager - HDFC Ergo and OP.4 is Manager - Tata AIG. According to the Complainant she had obtained health insurance policy from M/s.Apollo Munich Insurance Company in the year 2017 and  this policy is a mediclaim insurance policy with coverage of Rs.5 lakhs. It is stated and substantiated she had paid premium amount of Rs.7,107/- through her banker/OP.1. She has stated in her complaint that premium amount were to be paid by the banker/OP.1 through ECS mode by auto debit from her account with the OP.1 banker. In such circumstances, in our view,  it is this is the crux of the dispute was not at all perceived by the District Commission before passing the impugned order. If a complaint is raised on the basis of mediclaim impleading as many as four Ops the District Commission could have posed a question to itself, why banker is made a party? And could have admitted the complaint could have also issued notice to OPs.1 to 4 to call their version within time stipulated to hold an enquiry keeping in mind the object of CPA, yet Commission itself assumed certain things proceeded to dismiss the complaint at the threshold as not maintainable could not be expected from an adjudicatory body constituted under law. Hence we proceed to allow the appeal by dispense with issuance of notice of this appeal to be served on R.1 to 4 since complaint came to be dismissed at the threshold. Consequently set aside the order dtd.22.05.2024 passed in CC/176/2024 on the file of 4^th Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru urban with a direction to readmit the complaint and issue notice against OPs.1 to 4 to file their version within time stipulated and decide the case on merits considering the age of the Complainant as early as possible not later than three months from the date of appearance of OPs.1 to 4.

6. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

   Lady Member                                Judicial Member               

*NS*