Delhi

StateCommission

RP/12/21

M/S CITY X-RAY & SCAN CLINIC PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM AVTAR - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

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

 

Date of Decision :31.8.2015

                   Arguments heard on 21.8.2015

Revision Petition No. 21/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 3.2.12 passed in Complaint Case No.279/2011 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (North-East), Nand Nagri, New Delhi.)

In the matter of

CITY X-RAY & SCAN CLINIC P. LTD.

48/7, TILAK NAGAR,

NEW DELHI

 

……Appellant

 

Versus

SH. RAM AVTAR

S-59 2^ND FLOOR

OPP. SHIV TEMPLE

PARAM PURI CHOWK

UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI

 

…Respondents

 

CORAM

Salma Noor, Member

O.P. GUPTA, Member (Judicial)

 

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

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

O.P. GUPTA, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.2.12 passed by the District Forum (Central), by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal (North-East), Nand Nagri New Delhi by which the application of revision petitioner to implead United India Insurance Company Ltd. as co-respondent was dismissed.
2. The impugned order reveals that plea of the petitioner was that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, impleadment of insurance company was necessary.  The decision of State Commission in FA No.924/08 titled as Mohit Garg Vs. Ms. Manju Gupta dated 15.10.08 was ignored on the ground that the State Commission has left nothing for the District Forum to decide the proprietary of impleadment of insurance company. Such a reasoning can not be appreciated.
3. The other reasoning given by the District Forum is jurisdiction of Consumer Forum flows from the definition of the service provider and consumer, which clearly says that there should be direct obligation between the service provider and the consumer.  There is no privity of contract between the insurance company so far as the relationship of the consumer and the service provider is considered.  The cause of action available to the consumer is against the service provider and not against the third party.  In such circumstances insurance company can not be said to be a necessary party.
4. The reasoning given by the District Forum is against the decision of the National Commission in Dr. C.C. Choubal Vs. Pankaj Srivastava IV (2003) CPJ 111 where it was held that in case of medical negligency against doctor, insurance company is certainly a proper party.  If order against doctor is passed,  there would be no difficult for the complainant to get the amount of compensation to the extent of policy amount from the insurance company.  Thus impleadment of insurance company was allowed.
5. Moreover this Commission vide order dated 26.2.2015 in FA No.849/2011 titled as M/s. Panchsheel Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Gyatri Devi allowed imleadment of insurance company.
6. For the forgoing reasons the revision petition is accepted and application of the revision petitioner for impleading  United India Insurance Company as OP before the District Forum is allowed.
7. The revision petitioner would file fresh Memo of Parties and the District Forum would issue notice to the newly impleaded OP and thereafter proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with the law.
8.  The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 5.10.2015.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)