Delhi

StateCommission

FA/492/2014

MADHUSUDHAN TIWARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEDICARE TPA SERVICES (I). PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jul 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. FA/492/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission)
 
1. MADHUSUDHAN TIWARI
R/O 353/A, AMBEDKAR MARG, MANDAWALI, DEHI-110092.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MEDICARE TPA SERVICES (I). PVT. LTD.
E-1, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. RANI JHANSI ROAD, NEAR VIDEOCAON TOWER, NEW DELHI-110055.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                      Date of Decision:  15.7.2014

                                                                        

First Appeal - 492/14

 

 

Shri Madhusudan Tiwari

  •  

R/o 353-A, Ambedkar Mag,

Mandawali, Delhi-92

 

 

     .........Appellant

VS

 

 

 

 

Medicare TPA Services (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Director,

E-1, Jhandewalan Extn.,

Rani Jhansi Road, Near Videocon Tower,

New Delhi-110 055

 

Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Director

Corporate Office

Sundaram towers, 45 & 46,

Whites Road, Chennai-600 014

Regd. Office:21, Patullos Road,

Chennai-600 002

         ..........Respondent

 

 

 

 

CORAM

SALMA NOOR, MEMBER

N P KAUSHIK, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

 

1.        In a complaint case bearing No. 275/2014, titled as Medicare TPA Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Medicare TPA Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. filed before District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi, the Complainant had not put his appearance before the District Forum on 21.4.2014  and the Forum dismissed the complaint in complainant’s default.

2.            In the present appeal before this Commission,   Complainant/Appellant has prayed for setting aside the dismissal orders.

3.       We have heard Ms. Avantika Thakur, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage itself.

4.       Policy of law is not to stile a contest.  In such circumstances lenient view is required to be taken so as to allow the complaint and the matter may be decided on merit. We, therefore, allow the appeal setting aside the dismissal orders dated 21.4.2014 and remand the case back to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi, with a direction to restore the complaint to its original number, and to proceed in the case according to law.  The Appellant Complainant is directed to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi, on  19.8.2014.

5.       Copy of this order be sent to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi for information and to keep it on record and compliance and a copy of this order be transmitted to both the parties.

 
 
[HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK]
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.