Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/11/54

Chief Medical Officer - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Noorjahan - Opp.Party(s)

15 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,UTTARAKHAND
176 Ajabpur Kalan,Mothrowala Road,
Dehradun-248121
Final Order
 
First Appeal No. A/11/54
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission)
 
1. Chief Medical Officer
Haridwar and Other
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Noorjahan
W/o Mauseen, Gram Post Laldhang, Thana Shyampur, Haridwar
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. Verma PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. D. K. Tyagi, H.J.S. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Veena Sharma MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

ORDER

 

Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):

                                                       

            This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 passed by the District Fourm, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 276 of 2010; Smt. Noorjahan vs. Chief Medical Officer, Haridwar and another, whereby the Forum below has directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs. 27,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

 

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the appeal, are that the complainant was operated for Tubectomy on 19.01.2010 by       Dr. Naresh Johari-opposite party No. 2 of H.M.G. Government Hospital, Haridwar. Even after operation of Tubectomy, the complainant became pregnant, therefore, the consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant for compensation before the District Forum, Haridwar.

 

3.       The consumer complaint was contested by the opposite parties by filing written statement, wherein the allegations made by the complainant for deficiency of service have been denied. Even then in para No. 14 of the written statement, it was specifically stated that if any compensation is fastened over the opposite parties that would be paid by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, i.e. respondent No. 2 here.

 

4.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.  The complainant has not impleaded the insurance company as party before the District Forum, which was necessary party to be made. Since the compensation, if any, has to be paid by the insurance company, therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the judgment passed by the District Forum and allowed the appeal and directed the respondent No. 1-complainant to move an application for impleadment of insurance company before the District Forum within a period of 30 days.

 

5.       In view of the above facts, the appeal is allowed. The District Forum, Haridwar is directed to allow the impleadment application to be moved by the complainant and, thereafter, allow the insurance company to file written statement and further allow the parties to adduce fresh evidence and decide the consumer complaint in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the written statement by the insurance company. No order as to costs.  The amount deposited by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal be released in appellants’ favour.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. Verma]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. D. K. Tyagi, H.J.S.]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Veena Sharma]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.