Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, President.
Heard Mr.D.Ambrose-Advocate for the applicant/appellant and Mr.D.I.Shah-A.R. for the respondent.
Consumer complaint no.216/2008 was filed by respondent –Mr.B.S.Mehta against M/s.New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and Paramount Health Services Pvt.Ltd. Both these appellants in the present appeal were the opponents in the consumer complaint no.216/2008. The complainant has taken health insurance from the New India Assurance Co.Ltd. However, that was taken through Paramount Health Services Pvt.Ltd. Therefore, relationship between opponent nos.1&2 namely appellant was of the principle and agent. On the basis of the said insurance policy, mediclaim was made by the complainant and the said claim was repudiated by the Insurance company- opponent no.1. Therefore, consumer complaint no.216/2008 was filed by the respondent/original complainant. That complaint was decided on 24/08/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai and the complaint was partly allowed and the appellants/original opponents were directed to pay an amount of `1,47,989.29 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the amount within two months, failing which, penal interest @ 1% is chargeable. Costs of the complaint was granted to `500/-.
This order of the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed on 24/08/2009 in consumer complaint no.216/2008 was challenged by the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. by filing Appeal no.A/10/939. There was delay in filing the said appeal and, therefore, delay condonation application was also filed. That appeal was heard by the State Commission for condonation of delay and order was passed by the State Commission on 20/04/2011.
After considering the grounds for condonation of delay made in the said condonation of delay application, State Commission has come to the conclusion that there is no ground for condonation of delay and rejected the application for condonation of delay. Since the delay condonation application was rejected, appeal was also rejected.
Under these circumstances, if the Insurance Company is aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, remedy to the Insurance Company is to approach the Hon’ble National Commission by filing revision petition. Surprisingly, being a Corporate Body equipped with paraphernalia of the staff, advocates and well equipped with the Legal officers, they have not preferred revision petition before the National Commission. Instead Insurance Company has filed the present appeal no.A/11/366 along with delay condonation application being MA/11/210. This appeal has been filed on 29/04/2011. Registrar has signed on 02/05/2011. What appears that in fact after rejection of appeal by the Insurance Company, Insurance Company was not entitled to file such an appeal and delay condonation application. At the most what we find that the earlier appeal was filed only by one party i.e.Insurance Company and present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company along with their agent/original opponent no.2. However, fact remains that the opponent nos.1 & 2 are one and the same. They are principle and agent and whatever has been done by original opponent no.2 has been done for the Insurance Company. Obligation to make payment under the insurance policy is of the opponent no.1 Insurance Company and their agent who collected the business for them are not under obligation to make payment of the insurance policies. They are only business Collectors but the liability is not made by an Insurance policy as against the agents. Insurance policies are very much clear making and creating an obligation as against Insurance Company only. Therefore, by addition of the opponent no.2 as appellant, no change has taken place. Apart from that in the present delay condonation application all the grounds which have been raised are of administrative grounds of the opponent no.1. With those grounds opponent no.2 is not concerned. Even assuming for moment appellant no.2 has separate right to file appeal, grounds mentioned by opponent no.1 will not be akin or similar to as that of Insurance Company. His grounds will be different. However, on going through the condonation of delay application we do not find any specific ground made out by original opponent no.2, who is appellant too in the present appeal. Therefore, to circumvent the earlier order, opponent no.2 has joined in the present proceedings. However by that way appeal filed is not tenable in law. On the contrary, it shows misuse of the process of law on the part of Insurance Company. It further reflects upon conduct of the officers of the Insurance Company in what manner they desire to harass the complainant by filing multiple proceedings in Consumer Fora.
Apart from that when the present appeal was filed after disposal of first appeal, it was obligatory for the Insurance Company to disclose in the present appeal that earlier same proceeding was filed before the State Commission and in spite of that present appeal is being filed. That fact has been suppressed from the eyes of the State Commission and appeal has been filed. That shows Insurance Company’s officers are indulging into absolutely unfair trade practice in order to harass the complainant. What we find if we look to the total episode of first appeal and second appeal, it is simplicitor misuse of process of law and wastage of time of the State Commission repeatedly in dealing with the same matter and, therefore this appeal along with delay condonation application has to be rejected and we are accordingly rejecting it but we desire to impose costs of `15,000/- to be paid to Legal Aid Fund of this Commission within 15 days from today on the Insurance Company so that in another matters they will be cautious enough not to indulge into such unfair trade practice. If the costs are not paid within 15 days, Registrar shall issue Recovery Certificate under section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the Collector and recover the said amount from the Insurance Company.
Pronounced in the open court.
Pronounced on 23rd February, 2012.
