ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE

For the Petitioner                               :      Mr. Raju Goswami

                                                                   Mr. Tridib Kalita

For the respondent                             :       Mr. Sibanu Sarma

                                                                   Mr. Chinmoy Chakraborty

                                                                   Mr. Nurul Islam

O R D E R

D. K. Mahanta, Member

               Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

               Aggrieved by the order dated 05–10–2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kamrup, Guwahati, in respect of the Complaint Case No. 64 of 2014, the respondent / petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.

              Shortly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the instant Revision Petition are as follows:

              In the District Forum, the respondent, as complainant, instituted Complaint Case No. 64 of 2014 seeking compensation alleging illegal rejection of her claim for medical re-imbursement by the present petitioner in respect of the Health Insurance Policy Number                  OG-14-2405-6009-00000261 on the plea that the complainant was hospitalized for treatment of Obstructed Ventral Hernia but the Policy in question, had no coverage for any expenses incurred in treatment of Hernia during the first two years of its commencement.

              The petitioner / opposite party submitted their written statement against the claim set up by the complainant and in due course, two witnesses for the complainant side filed their evidence through affidavit. Thereafter, the case was posted on 07-09-2016 for recording of the cross-examination of the witnesses of the complainant party.

               On that date, one petition was filed on behalf of the complainant with a prayer to call for some original documents from the office of the petitioner Insurance Company that were reportedly deposited by the complainant at the time of processing her claim. The counsel for the opposite party, allegedly, could not appear in the District Forum on that day, due to some personal inconvenience and therefore, the case was adjourned till 05-10-2016 for hearing on the petition filed on behalf of the complainant side for issuance of a direction to the insurer for production of documents.

                  It is the contention of the petitioner Insurance Company that due to wrong noting of the scheduled date in his diary as 07-10-2016, instead of 05-10-2016, the counsel for the petitioner defaulted in his appearance on the fixed date 05-10-2016. On that day, the District Forum passed order that the case will proceed ex-parte against the Opposite Party Insurance Company (Petitioner herein) and accordingly, adjourned the case till 08-12-2016 for filing of the written argument by the complainant side.

                   The admitted position is that on 05-10-2016, the case was fixed for hearing on the petition filed on behalf of the complainant for issuance of a direction to the insurer for production of documents. Due to absence of the counsel representing the Insurance Company (Opposite Party in the Complaint Case No. 64 of 2014) on that day, the District Forum as a general course, should have passed order for production of the documents by the Petitioner Insurance Company, in case the petition filed by the complainant had been allowed or postpone the case for recording of the cross-examination of the witnesses of the complainant side, in the event of rejection of the petition of the complainant for issuance of a direction to the insurer for production of certain documents.

                 The order of the District Forum to proceed ex-parte against the Opposite Party Insurance Company practically tantamount to denial of the cross-examination of the complainant and her witness and rejection of the opportunity to the Opposite Party to adduce their counter evidence to negate the contention of the complainant.

                   In our considered opinion, the impugned order of the District Forum, in the circumstances referred above, cannot be sustained and accordingly the said order is set aside. However, keeping in mind the interest of the complainant, it is ordered that the Opposite Party will pay Rs.1,000/- as cost to the complainant party because, the counsel for the Insurance Company failed to appear in the District Forum for two consecutive dates on the plea of personal inconvenience as well as for alleged wrong entry of the fixed date in his personal diary which led to the passing of the impugned order by the District Forum.

                    Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 05–10–2016 for proceeding ex-parte against the Opposite Party Insurance Company is set aside. Immediately after receipt of the case record of the complaint case from this Commission, the District Forum will issue due Notice to both the parties fixing a date for their appearance and continue with the trial of the case from the stage of hearing of the petition filed on behalf of the complainant for issuance of a direction to the insurer for production of documents.

                     The original records of the Complaint Case No. 64 of 2014 along with a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned District Forum without delay.