State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. V.K. Aneja vs Girija Sathya Babu on 6 February, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 06.2.2013 First Appeal 1019/2012 (Arising out of the order dated 9.10..2012 passed by the District Forum(East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in complaint case No. 46/2012) Dr. V.K. Aneja, MD, Internal Medicine, Apollo Hospital, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi .........Appellant VS 1.
2.
3.
4. Ms. Girija Sathya Babu R/o F-5, Fine Home Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110 091 Dr. Anjan De MBBS, MRCP, Senior Physician, 197B, Pocket-1, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi Dr. P.S. Das, MBBS, MD, Noida Medical Centre, E-16-C, Sector-30, Noida-201 301 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at : Yusuf Sarai, G-11, Husz Khas Market, New Delhi-110 016 ....Respondent Proforma Respondents CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President A.K.Siddiqui, Member(Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, PRESIDENT
1. The facts of the case are that in a complaint case No. 46/12 Ms. Girija Sathya Babu against Op No.1 Dr. V.K. Aneja, OP No.2 Dr. Anjan De and OP No.3 Dr. P.S. Das pending before District Forum (East). OP No.1 along with his written version also filed an application to implead United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the District Forum declined to oblige on the ground that OP No.1 had not given address of the Insurance Company so that notice could be served on the company.
2. That is what brings the OP No.2/appellant in appeal before this Commission.
3. We have heard Shri Sandeep Kapoor, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage itself, as there is no need to hear Counsel for the respondent complainant or other proforma respondents in this appeal.
4. As well seen from the order passed by the District Forum, the Forum allowed the applications of OP No.2 & 3 of similar nature by the same order while the rejected the application of the appellant. It may be seen from the record available before us that OP No.1 along with his application for impleadment, had filed the copy of the insurance policy, which contained the address of the United India Insurance Company as 54, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The District Forum appears to have not noticed the said address on the policy while dismissing the application of the Appellant OP No.1 Moreover, the Forum could have asked from the OP to furnish the address of the Insurance Company, after accepting the said application for service of the notice. The order of the District Forum, is a bit harsh. The appeal is, therefore, allowed at the admission stage itself and the order of the District Forum passed on 9.10.2012 in this regard is set aside. The application for impleadment of United India Insurance Company by the appellant OP is allowed with the direction to appellant OP that he will file recent correct address of United India Insurance Co. on the date fixed before the Forum and the District Forum will cause National Insurance Company to be impleaded as OP in the case.
5. Copy of this order be sent to District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi for information and to keep it on record and compliance.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (A.K.Siddiqui) Member (Judicial) Arya