Date of Filing: 29.01.2021 Date of Disposal: 06.06.2022
Complainant : Mrs. Susmita Ghosh, w/o Surajit Dutta, resident of Sarada Pally, Panagarh
Rail Par, P.O. Panagarh Bazar, P.S. Kanksa, Dist. Paschim Bardhaman.
-VERSUS -
Opposite Party : 1. Managing Director, The Vivekananda Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Dr. Zakir Hussain
Avenue, Bidhan Nagar, P.O. Durgapur, Paschim Bardhaman – 713206.
2. Divisional Manager/ Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited
Tapas Bhavan, 1st Floor (adjacent to BSNL Office), Bhiringee, P.O. Durgapur-13,
Paschim Bardhaman.
3. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Palika Bazar,
Rudco Building, 3rd Floor, Burdwan, Purbo Bardhaman - 713101
Present : Mohammad Muizzuddeen -Hon’ble President.
: Smt. Lipika Ghosh - Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant : Sri Gadadhar Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the Opposite Party : Sri Anupam Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate.
: Sri Shyamal Kumar Ganguli, Ld. Advocate.
Order No. 32 Date: 06.06.2022
Today is fixed for passing order in respect of M.A. case being No. 12/2021.
Complainant files hazira through Ld. Advocate. OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 file separate hazira through Ld. Advocates. The record is taken up for passing order.
On 29.01.2021, the OP Nos. 2 & 3 have filed a petition supported by an affidavit praying for expunging them from this case which has been registered as M.A. case being No. 12/2021.
Ld. Advocate for the OP Nos. 2 & 3 submitted that the OP Nos. 2 & 3 Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Palika Bazar, Burdwan has never issued any policy in favour of the complainant in the instant matter as per their official record till date and thereby, the OP Nos. 2 & 3 have no liabilities and relinquish any repercussion thereafter in connection with the instant matter. He further submitted that the OP Nos. 2 & 3 has no connection in the instant matter and they are not necessary parties in this dispute, and as such there is no cause of action against them. Upon this background they prayed for expunging them from this case. Copy served to other sides who raised objection.
OP No.1 filed written objection against the M.A. case No. 12/2021 and Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submitted that as per direction of the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the OP appeared in this case. The OP No.1 is a private Hospital and as the private Hospital got insured under United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as Errors and Omission Policy vide Policy No. 0315052718P100305590 for the period from 07.04.2018 to 06.04.2019 and as such the Insurer Company is duty bound to deal with the case on behalf of the OP No.1 and take all responsibilities and liabilities, if any, from time to time.
However advised OP No.1 to file a petition before Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum with a prayer to add the Insurance Company i.e. OP Nos. 2 & 3 as a party to the case being No. 77 of 2019 for proper adjudication and the same M.A. case being No. 60/2019 was allowed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and in view of the said order OP Nos. 2 & 3 were appeared in this case and subsequently filed this M.A. case and they are necessary parties in this case. Upon this background he prayed for rejection of M.A. case 12/2021.
On perusal of the case record, it appears that in view of Order No. 60/2019 the complainant was directed to add/incorporate United India Insurance Company Limited as OP in the instant case for proper adjudication of the complaint and in view of order No. 12 dated 20.11.2019 it was directed the complainant to file amended complaint showing OP Hospital as OP No.1 and United Insurance Company Limited as OP No.2 in this case, and the Complainant accordingly has filed the amended complaint by adding OP Nos. 2 & 3 as party to the case. From the above orders nowhere it has been mentioned that the complaint and register was amended on the prayer of the complainant. Apart from it from the prayer of the complainant, it is clear that there is no relief claimed by the complainant against the OP Nos. 2 & 3. Apart from it no copy of Insurance Policy as mentioned in the M.A. case 60/2019 has been filed by the OP No.1 to show that the OP Nos. 2 & 3 issued the said Insurance Policy in favour of the complainant.
The petition of M.A Case No. 12/2021 clearly disclosed that OP Nos. 2 & 3 has never issued any policy in favour of the complainant in the instant matter as per official record till date. The OP No.1 could not produce any such policy to show that OP Nos. 2 & 3 has issued any policy in favour of the Complainant. Mere saying in the written objection filed by the OP No.1 that the OP Nos. 2 & 3 have issued such and such policy has not sufficient to incorporate them as party of this case. Even OP No.1 could not state as to whether the said policy was issued in favour of the complainant or not. If OP No.1 has been got insured under the OP Nos.2 & 3 the matter would be confined in between OP No.1 and OP Nos. 2 & 3 and not in between the complainant and the OP Nos. 2 & 3.
Under the above facts and circumstances we find that there is every ground to allow the M.A. case 12/2021.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the M.A. case being No. 12/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest but without any cost. The OP Nos. 2 & 3 be expunged from the complaint.
To 18.08.2022 for filing evidence-on-affidavit on side of the complainant.
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
