Order Date:  03 .03.2023

Today is fixed for passing order in respect of M.A. case being No. 96/2019.

Complainant files hazira through Ld. Advocate.

OP No.3 files hazira through Ld. Advocate and the OP No.2 also files hazira through Ld. Advocate.

On  18.12.2019 the OP No.2 has filed a petition supported by an affidavit praying for expunging the name of OP No.1 from the Cause Title of the Complaint on the ground that OP No.1 the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , having its registered office at A-25/27, ASAF ALI Road, New Delhi-110002 is neither resident of the place where the present Consumer Complaint Case have been filed nor carrying any business directly at the present place, but only through its Branch Office, being the OP No.2 and the same in turn under the direct control of the Divisional Office, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Asansol Divisional Office, Uma Bhawan, G.T. Road, Asansol-713301 and furthermore the Oriental Insurance company Ltd. is a vast organization spreading over the whole country. For convenience of its functions, it has a Hierarchical structure descending from the Central office – Zonal office – Divisional Office – Branch Office – Satellite Office and the OP No.2,  which is directly controlled under the Divisional Office Asansol Division. 

Though the complainant did not file any written objection against it yet at the time of hearing of the M.A. case, Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that OP No.1 being the Insurance Company having its various offices throughout India is liable vicariously for the act of its Sub-Divisional office and Branch office and he also submitted that OP No.4 is the 3^rd Party administration of the OP No.1 & 2 Company. So the OP No.1 cannot avoid his liability.

The Ld. Advocate for the OP prayed for rejection of the M.A. case. Perused the petition, complaint, it appears neither the OP No.1 appeared nor the OP No.1 gave authorization to Asansol Divisional Office to appear on its ‘behalf’. One Vakalatnama filed for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Asansol Division office who is not a party to this case at all. Rather the OP No.1 by appearing by himself or through agent did not pray for expunging of its name. The OP No.2 cannot pray for expunging of the name of OP No.1 without any authorization of OP No.1. Furthermore OP No.4 through which mediclaim are disbursed is the 3^rd party administration of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and as such the OP No.1 is also vicariously liable for the act of OP No.4.

Upon the above circumstances and discussion, we are of opinion that we do not find any reason to allow the petition filed by the OP No.2 for expunging the name of OP No.1, which should be rejected.

Hence, it is

                                                   Ordered

that this M.A. case being No. 96/2019 be and the same is rejected on contest but without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties on free of cost.

The complainant is directed to take fresh step against the OPs whose S/R has not been received and they did not appear.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

                 President

D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman

                   Member                                                             Member                                             President

D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman          D.C.D.R.C. Purba Bardhaman.          D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman