State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.A.K. Pathak vs Shalu Raikwar on 23 September, 2020
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL REVISION PETITION NO.62 OF 2019 (Arising out of order dated 16.10.2018 passed in C.C.No.69/2018 by the District Commission,Jabalpur-2) 1. DR. A. K. PATHAK, CENTRAL INDIA KIDNEY HOSPITAL, WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 2. CENTRAL INDIA KIDNEY HOSPITAL, WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) THROUGH DR. A. K. PATHAK 3. DR. R. S. TIWARI, CENTRAL INDIA KIDNEY HOSPITAL, WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) ... PETITIONERS Versus SHALU RAIKWAR, D/O SHRI NARAYAN RAIKWAR, MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN SHRI NARAYAN RAIKWAR, R/O H.NO.376/7, AGAHA CHOWK, UJARPURA, RANI TAAL, JABALPUR (M.P.). ... RESPONDENT. BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI PRABHAT PARASHAR : MEMBER O R D E R 23.09.2020 Ms. Anita Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Alkesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. As per Dr. Monika Malik :
Counsel for petitioners has moved an application IA-3 seeking transposition of parties in the revision memo. In this application learned counsel has made a submission that Dr. R. S. Tiwari has been impleaded as respondent no.2, in the array of parties by mistake and therefore she seeks to implead Dr. R. S. Tiwari as petitioner no. 3 in the Revision Petition which is filed by her. Learned counsel has also filed vakalatnama on behalf of Shri R. S. Tiwari.
-2-2. On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners and also having gone through the IA-3, application regarding transposition of parties, we allow this application and direct the counsel for petitioners to implead Dr. R. S. Tiwari, as petitioner no. 3 and delete his name from the respondents in the matter, during the course of the day.
3. In this light the vakalatnama filed by the petitioners' counsel on behalf of Dr. R. S. Tiwari is also taken on record.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties on the question of delay in filing Revision Petition.
5. This revision petition is filed after delay of three months and twenty two days. Learned counsel for respondent has raised an objection regarding condonation of delay stating that the petitioners sought condonation of delay on very irresponsible ground. The impugned order which was passed by the District Commission on 16.10.2018 is challenged by the petitioners on 08.05.2019 in the present revision petition. No reason has been specified as to why the petitioners received the information regarding the impugned order on 11.04.2019. Learned counsel for respondent made a submission that delay be condoned subject to payment of some cost.
6. After hearing submission of learned counsel for the respondent, we condone the delay in filing this revision petition subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to the respondent/complainant. The aforesaid amount shall be payable on or before the next date of appearance before the District Commission.
-3-7. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.2 Jabalpur (For short District Commission) in C.C.No.69/2018 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for incorporating Oriental Insurance Company Limited as a necessary party in the matter, has been dismissed.
8. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.3 had moved an application before the District Commission for incorporating Oriental Insurance Company Limited as a party in the matter. The petitioner is indemnified under the aforesaid insurance policy.
9. The aforesaid application was supported by petitioner no.1 and 2. The District Commission, however, dismissed the application, which will have legal implications on the petitioners.
10. As we carefully peruse the impugned order, and the Professional Indemnity-Doctors Policy Schedule, it is revealed that Dr. R. S. Tiwari is insured under the aforesaid policy As per petitioners, the insurance company provides risk coverage to the Medical Professional. Thus, we are of a considered view that the concerned insurance company is a necessary party in the matter. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, we deem it appropriate that the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. be incorporated in the array of parties before the District Commission.
11. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid observation we set-aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the District Commission and direct that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited be made as one of the parties in the -4- cause title of the complaint. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 23.10.2020.
12. The District Commission is directed to proceed further, in the matter in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the newly added party.
13. This revision petition is accordingly allowed and the stay order passed earlier shall stand vacated.
(Dr. Monika Malik) (Prabhat Parashar) Presiding Member Member