Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.3.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant (now appellant) due to non-joinder of Insurance Company i.e. HDFC Ergo as a party. 2. The complainant was an employee of OP No.6. According to the insurance policy, obtained by OP No.6, from the Insurance Company in respect of the complainant, her parents were entitled to medical reimbursement. When the complainant joined OP No.6, in the month of April, the window for updating the name of the parents on their medi-claim website had been closed. When she confirmed about the reimbursement of the claim of her father’s surgery, which took place on 20.6.2009, OP NO.1 confirmed through an email that the same would be made. The complainant incurred the expenditure of Rs.33,000/- on the operation of her father. Subsequently, she resigned from the OP organization on 17.8.2009. She was not given reimbursement of the expenses, incurred by her, for the surgery of her father, despite many requests. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by her. 3. In their written reply, OP NOs.2 to 6, specifically denied that when the complainant joined the OP organization, in April 2009, the window for updating the name of parents on the medi-claim website, was closed. It was stated that the complainant was informed that the window was open from 15.4.2009 to 30.4.2009, but she did not bother to update the information of her parents during the relevant time. It was denied that Ms. Vandana Kharbanda, ever confirmed the reimbursement of medi-claim, or that the officers of the OP Company, were personally liable for the alleged reimbursement of the claim. It was further stated that the officers of the OP Company always cooperated with the complainant and tried to help her. They also sent emails dated 13.11.2009 and 4.2.2010, in this regard. It was further stated that it was HDFC Ergo Insurance Co. Ltd., which issued the insurance policy and OP No.6 was only a facilitator of the benefit of medi-claim insurance, being employer of the complainant. It was further stated that the claim, if any, admissible for the surgery of the father of the complainant, was to be paid by the said Insurance Company, but she (complainant) failed to implead it as a party and, as such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. It was denied that OP Nos.2 to 6 were deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 4.. OP No.1 was duly served through publication, but none appeared on her behalf and, as such, she was proceeded against ex parte. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum dismissed the complaint only on the ground that HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. which provided the insurance cover and which was a necessary party, was not impleaded as a respondent. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed, by the appellant/complainant. 8. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 were duly served, but were not present and they were proceeded against ex parte. Service of OP No.1 was dispensed with. 9. During the pendency of appeal, an application for impleading HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. was filed by the appellant, which was allowed vide order dated 5.9.2011.Accorindgly HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. was impleaded as respondent No.7. 10. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, Counsel for respondent No.7, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. issued the insurance policy, under which, the medical reimbursement, in relation to the surgery of the father of the complainant, was covered. He further submitted that HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. was not impleaded as a party, in the complaint. He further submitted that since HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. has been impleaded as a party, vide order dated 5.9.2011, during the course of appeal, the complaint may be remanded to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for fresh decision, for giving an opportunity to respondent No.7 to file reply and lead evidence . 12. The Counsel for respondent No.7, also submitted that, since respondent No.7 was impleaded as a party, during the pendency of the appeal vide order dated 5.9.2011, it was required to be afforded an opportunity to file written reply and lead evidence. He also submitted that the complaint be remanded to the District Forum for fresh decision. 13. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be accepted and the complaint deserves to be remanded back, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. Admittedly, respondent No.6, obtained insurance policy for its employees, and the complainant was one of them. Respondent No.6 was only the employer of the complainant, when the policy was taken from HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. The District Forum was right, in holding that respondent NO.6, was only a facilitator of the benefit of medi-claim insurance, and no liability could be fastened upon it. Liability, if any, under the terms and conditions of the Policy, could only be fastened upon the Insurance Company. Since, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., was not impleaded as a party, in the District Forum, it was not afforded an opportunity to file written reply, lead evidence, in support of its case, and rebut the allegations, contained in the complaint. It is settled principle of law that every lis should be decided on merits, after affording full opportunity to the parties, to put-forth their version and prove the same by leading evidence. No party can be condemned unheard. The order of the District Forum is, thus, liable to be set aside. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum, for fresh decision, within a period of two months from 2.11.2011, after affording an opportunity to respondent No.7(which be also impleaded as OP No.7 in the complaint), to file written reply and lead evidence, by way of affidavit(s) and hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the parties. 15. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 2.11.2011 at 10.30 A.M. 16. The file/record of the District Forum be sent back, at once. 17. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 18. The file be consigned to Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
