Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/507

LIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJEEV DUBEY - Opp.Party(s)

SH.J.R.GUPTA

06 Jun 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 14.02.2019 passed in C.C.No.37/2017 by District Commission, Rajgarh)

 

BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE

CORPORATION OF INDIA                                                                              …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

RAJEEV DUBEY.                                                                                              …         RESPONDENT.                                      

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR     :     PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                          :      MEMBER  

                                    

 

                                      O R D E R

06.06.2023.

 

          Shri Jatin Rohit Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Devendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

                                   

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

            This appeal arises out of the order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajgarh (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.37/2017 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent with regard to claim filed for injury of fracture suffered by him in right ankle joint.

2.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint when the compensation for fracture ankle joint was not payable under the terms and conditions of the policy taken by the respondent.

 

-2-

3.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that since the policy terms and conditions were not supplied to the respondent, the plea taken by the appellant is not maintainable. He submits that in reply to the complaint before the District Commission no such ground was taken.

4.                We have heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the record as also the impugned order.

5.                On going through the record as also the impugned order we find that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. There is no consideration whether claim for compensation for fracture in ankle joint is payable under the policy, to the respondent or not.  Further, the District Commission has not gone through the aspect as to whether the policy terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant/respondent or not.

6.                Having not done so, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable and the same is set-aside.  The matter is remanded to the District Commission for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law.

7.                Parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence, if so advised. They are directed to appear before the District Commission on 18.07.2023.

 

-3-

8.                With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of.

9.                No order as to costs.

                                               

        (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)         (Dr. Monika Malik)   

                    President                                     Member