Delhi

North West

CC/469/2017

DIMPLE SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAX SUPER SPECIALTY HOSPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION-V, NORTH-WEST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/469/2017
( Date of Filing : 23 Jun 2017 )
 
1. DIMPLE SHARMA
W/O LATE SH.GAGAN SHARMA R/O 15/5,PUNJABI BAGH EXTN. NEW DELHI-110026
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. MAX SUPER SPECIALTY HOSPITAL
FC-50,C&D BLOCK.SHALIMAR BAGH,NEW DELHI-110088
2. APPOLO MUNICH HEALTH INS.CO.LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,10TH FLOOR,TOWER B,BUILDING NO.10,DLF CYBER CITY,DLF CITY PHASE-II,GURGAON,HARYANA-122002
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 17 Jan 2024
Final Order / Judgement

17.01.2024

 

  1. An application filed on behalf of OP-1 i.e. Max Super Speciality Hospital under order 1 rule 10 (2) read with section 151 of CPC for deletion of the name from the array of parties.

 

  1. It is stated in the application that OP-1 has been wrongly impleaded  as necessary party for gaining illegal profit and extracting additional money by way of compensation. It is further stated that OP-1 rendered medical services to the complainant against the payment and as such the monitory transaction took place between the complainant and OP-1. It is further stated that denial of the cashless claim by OP-2 does not make OP-1 liable for any deficiency in service as well as compensation. It is further stated that OP-1 has no role in the present complaint hence, be deleted from the array of parties.

 

  1. Reply to the application filed by complainant thereby simply denying the averments made in the application. It is further stated in the reply that cause of action has been arisen when the complainant visited for treatment to OP-1.
  2. We have heard applicant/counsel for OP-1 Ms. Gurpreet Kaur as well as Sh. M.K. Gill counsel for complainant and  perused the record.

 

  1. Admittedly the complainant has filed the present complaint for non reimbursement of his mediclaim by OP-2. The complainant itself admit in its reply to the deletion application that the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose qua OP-1 only because the complainant has visited the OP-1 for treatment. No further allegation/averments has been made by the complainant qua OP-1 in his complaint as well as reply to the deletion application. The visit of the complainant for treatment to OP-1 without any deficiency on the part of OP-1 does not accrued any cause of action qua OP-1 to file the present complaint case.

 

  1. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that no cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant and against the OP for filing the present complaint qua OP-1, hence, the application for deletion stands allowed. OP-1 is deleted from the array of parties.  

 

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   17.01.2024.

 

 

(SANJAY KUMAR)                       (NIPUR CHANDNA)             (RAJESH)

           PRESIDENT                                   MEMBER                     MEMBER

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.