NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
REVISION PETITION NO. 292 OF 2012
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Authorized Signatory
New Delhi …Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP)
Shri Pradip Deoram Jadhav
Vinchur Road, Yeola Tal Yeola,
District Nashik …Respondent/Complainant
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sunil Kumar Ojha, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON 11th October, 2013
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.10.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. A/11/423 – Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradip Deoram Jadhav by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent purchased Family Floater Policy No. 164000/48/11/00178 from OP/Petitioner and it was valid for the period 16.8.1999 to 15.8.2000. It was further submitted that OP-Development Officer apprised him about new policy named Family Floater Policy. He applied for it and OP issued policy on 28.4.2010. It was further submitted that as he was not feeling well on 28.4.2010, he went to Dr. Muley for general check-up who advised him to contact Dr. Manoj B. Chopada Nashik. He contacted Dr. Chopada who advised him to undergo Angiography and Angioplasty which was performed on 29.4.2010. He incurred expenditure of Rs.2,50,000/-, but his claim was repudiated by OP on the ground that he suppressed the fact of suffering from BP, though, he was not the patient of BP and did not take any medicine. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that complainant was suffering from hypertension since 4 years and he had not disclosed this fact; hence, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.15,000/-for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation. Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order and further submitted that inspite of material on record about complainant disease, Learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Perusal of record clearly reveals that complainant obtained policy on 28.4.2010 and on the very day he contacted Dr. Chopada who advised him to undergo Angiography and Angioplasty and the next day this was performed. Perusal of record further reveals that in proposal form complainant submitted that he was in good health and denied every sort of disease, whereas complainant was suffering from hypertension since last 4 years. Learned State Commission observed that merely by filing certain photo copies, is not synonymous to tendering of evidence and disputed fact is not at all established. In our opinion, aforesaid order of State Commission is not in accordance with law, as complainant himself admitted in the complaint that on the day of obtaining policy, he was not feeling well and contacted Dr. Chopada who advised him to undergo Angiography and Angioplasty and on the next day the Angiography and Angioplasty was performed. Learned State Commission ought to have discussed documents filed by the parties before the District forum and should have passed reasoned order.
6. Apparently, the aforesaid order is not a speaking order whereas it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in in (2001) 10 SCC 659 – HVPNL Vs.Mahavir as under:
“1.In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms:
‘We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN – appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal’.
2. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission”.
7. In the light of aforesaid judgment, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal by a reasoned speaking order.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 11.10.2011 in Appeal No. A/11/423 – Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs.Pradip Deoram Jadhav is set aside and matter is remanded back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal by a speaking order by giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.11.2013.
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)
( DR. B.C. GUPTA )