National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sh. P.N. Gupta vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 19 November, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3821 OF 2013 (From the order dated 20.09.2013 in First Appeal No. 255 / 2013 of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Sh. P.N. Gupta 7/1 Dakshin Puri Ext. New Delhi 110062. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. CDU/312000 B 401, Ansal Chambers, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. 2. M/s. Raksha Medical Division TPA Pvt. Ltd. 15/5 Mathura Road, Faridabad 121003. Respondents
BEFORE HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Ms. Archna Sharma, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 19th NOVEMBER 2013 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 255/2013, P.N. Gupta versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioner/complainant against the order dated 30.01.2013, passed by District Forum in the consumer complaint in question was dismissed in default for the non-appearance of the petitioner/appellant/complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner P.N. Gupta filed consumer complaint in question on behalf of his daughter-in-law, Dr. Mrs. Meena Gupta, claiming a medi-claim amount of `42,675/- from the respondent insurance company and compensation of `50,000/- for physical/mental agony and `25,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. The District Forum vide their order dated 30.01.2013 stated that the complaint was not maintainable because the complainant was not the policy-holder, rather his daughter-in-law was the co-policy holder with her husband and son. The complainant was also not holding any position of any registered voluntary consumer association. The learned District Forum held that as per clause (v) of section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a legal heir or a representative could file a complaint only in the case of death of consumer. In the present case, the consumer herself could have filed the complaint and hence, the present complaint was not maintainable. An appeal was filed against this order before the State Commission, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2013 for the non-appearance of the appellant. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.
3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the policy-holder could give authority to her father-in-law for filing the complaint in question. She, however, could not explain any of the legal provisions under which the complaint could be filed by father-in-law of the policy holder. It has been mentioned in the body of the petition that under clause, one or more consumer having same interest on behalf of, can file the complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could also not explain any reason for the non-appearance of the petitioner/appellant /complainant before the State Commission. All she stated was that petitioner could not appear before the State Commission due to heavy traffic. However, this ground does not find mention in the body of the petition.
5. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. The term complainant has been defined under section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as follows:-
(b) "complainant" means
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1of 1956)or under any other law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State Government,
(iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest;
(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a complaint;
6. It is very clear from a plain reading of the above provision that a representative or legal heir can file a complaint only in the case of death of consumer. Further, if there are numerous consumers having the same interest, one or more consumers can file the complaint. In the present case, Dr. Mrs. Meena Gupta is the co-policy-holder along with his husband and her son and she could have very well filed the present complaint. I do not see any reason to disagree with the findings of the District Forum that the present complaint is not maintainable, having been filed by the father-in-law of the policy-holder.
7. Further, the State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-appearance of the petitioner/appellant before it. No valid reason has been advanced for the non-appearance of the counsel before the State Commission on that date. In the grounds of petition also, no such plea has been taken. In the light of these facts, it is held that there is no perversity in the order passed by the District Forum and State Commission and hence there is no ground for interference in the said orders at the revisional stage. The present revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER RS/