State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Manoj Rana And Ors. on 19 January, 2023
Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023
59 of 2018 Vs.
Sh. Manoj Rana and Others
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 03.05.2018
Date of Final Hearing: 03.01.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 19.01.2023
First Appeal No. 59 / 2018
Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Regd. Head Office: Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi
Divisional Office: 1st Floor, Sachdeva Complex, Haridwar Road, Dehradun
4, Haridwar Road, Sachdeva Colony, Dehradun
Through Sh. S.P. Singh, Regional Manager
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 24 A New Cantt. Road, Dehradun
(Through: Smt. Savita Sethi, Advocate)
.....Appellant
VERSUS
1. Sh. Manoj Rana S/o Sh. Mahipal Singh
R/o 1/1791/41, Chander Nagar, Near Hydel Office
Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh
Presently R/o 29-A, Lane No. 3
Turner Road, Clement Town, Dehradun
.....Respondent No. 1 in Person
2. Himalayan Institute and Hospital
Jolygrant, Swami Ramnagar, Dehradun
Through its Authorised Signatory
None for Respondent No. 2
3. Combined Medical Institute
54, Haridwar Road, Dehradun
Through its Authorised Signatory
None for Respondent No. 3
4. Synergy Institute of Medical Sciences
Ballupur, Canal Road, Dehradun
Through its Authorised Signatory
(Through: Sh. Praveen Kumar, Advocate)
.....Respondent No. 4
1
Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023
59 of 2018 Vs.
Sh. Manoj Rana and Others
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 103 of 2016 styled as Sh. Manoj Rana Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, wherein and whereby the complaint case was allowed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant purchased a "Mediclaim Happy Family Floater Policy"
bearing policy No. 253200/48/15/00378 from the opposite party No. 1, i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. on dated 17.05.2014 with the insurance coverage of five members of his family for a sum of Rs. Three Lakhs for one year. The complainant underwent medical treatment in the hospital of opposite party No. 6 - Himalayan Institute and Hospital, Jollygrant, Dehradun from 04.11.2014 to 08.11.2014 where he was diagnosed with 'Diplopia' and he was charged with a bill of Rs. 26,769.92ps.; thereafter the complainant underwent medical treatment in the hospital of opposite party No. 7 - Combined Medical Institute, Dehradun from 18.11.2014 to 21.11.2014 where he was diagnosed with 'Recurrent Vomiting- Ketosis Non-DM' and 'Electrolyte Imbalance'; for the said treatment the complainant was charged Rs. 20,085/-; the complainant subsequently underwent medical treatment in the hospital of opposite party No. 8 - Synergy Institute of Medical Science, Ballupur, Canal Road, Dehradun 2 Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others three times, i.e. i) from 22.11.2014 to 29.11.2014 where he was diagnosed with 'Multiple Sclerosis', ii) from 23.12.2014 to 02.01.2015 where he was diagnosed with 'CVA with acute infarct right medulla, superior, inferior cerebellar peduncles', and iii) from 13.01.2015 to 22.01.2015 where he was again diagnosed with 'Multiple Sclerosis' and for the said treatment the complainant was charged with a bill for an amount of Rs. 2,28,529/-.
The complainant again underwent treatment in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi from 03.03.2015 to 16.03.2015, where he was diagnosed with 'Demyelinating disease' which is under evaluation and under research; for the said treatment, the complainant was charged a bill of Rs. 40,685/- from where the complainant was finally cured. The claimant claimed the amount of health expenses from the opposite party No. 1 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., as the complainant was insured for the same under the said health policy and he deposited all the requisite original documents for claim processing. After several efforts of complainant in May, 2015 when the complainant again enquired about why his claims are still not processed, he was informed by the representative of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 that the complainant's claim is relating a genetic disease called 'Multiple Sclerosis' and they have forwarded his claim with such remarks to their divisional office at Dehradun. The claimant had been regularly purchasing and renewing insurance policies from the opposite party No. 1 since last 3 to 4 years and before 04.11.2014; the complainant never required to claim any amount from the opposite party No. 1. The complainant sent a legal notice upon the aforesaid facts through his advocate Sh. R.S. Raghav on dated 17.07.2015 to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4, after which the opposite party No. 5 paid only an amount of Rs. 89,247/- through NEFT on dated 01.10.2015 and Rs. 81,226/- through NEFT on dated 03.10.2015, i.e. total amount of Rs. 1,70,473/-; after the receipt of the said amount, the complainant inquired before the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 regarding the non-payment of the rest of the amount of 3 Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others Rs. 1,29,527/-, then the opposite party No. 2 sent the documents regarding deductions in the claim amount vide email dated 01.10.2015; after going through the contents of the documents, it was not clear as to the real reasons for deductions in his claim amount and the same was only sent to confuse the complainant even more. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 committed deficiency in service; averring the aforesaid facts, the complainant has filed his complaint before the District Commission to direct the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 to pay an amount of Rs. 1,29,527/- alongwith Rs. 10,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 25,000/- for costs of litigation.
3. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 have averred in their written statement that the contention of the complaint are baseless; the payment or reimbursement are made in terms and conditions of the policy and nothing more and nothing less can be paid. The answering opposite parties cannot make payment beyond the terms and conditions on which indemnification cover was provided by it. If the reimbursement is not to the expectations of the complainant, but are in consonance of the terms and conditions of the impugned policy, then in such eventuality, no deficiency in service can be construed as alleged. There exists no act of negligence on the basis of which any deficiency in service can be construed on the part of the answering opposite parties. In the present case, no action undertaken by the answering opposite parties can be construed to come within the purview of deficiency in service, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The opposite party No. 6 has alleged that the complainant was a suspected case of MS (Multiple Sclerosis) and was admitted with suspected MS relapse in V/o Complaint of Diplopia. Although the repeat MRI did not suggest any evidence of MS Ophthalmology consultation was sought for Diplopia. CSF examination was not done as the complainant was not willing for the same. Possibility of Idiopathic Polyneuritis Cranialis was 4 Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others kept and treatment was started accordingly. The complainant received Methyl Prednisolone during the hospital stay and was then discharged in a clinically stable condition with advice to follow up, but he never follow up.
As per records of the hospital, a sum of Rs. 17,714/- was the total amount incurred on the treatment of the complainant in Himalayan Hospital which was paid by the complainant. The answering opposite party is a charitable hospital providing affordable and quality treatment and is not concerned in any way with the dispute and the name of Himalayan Hospital to the dispute is baseless and has no relevancy to the matter of the case, hence, on the above facts, the Himalayan Hospital shall be removed from the array of the parties.
5. The opposite party No. 8 has submitted its detailed letter dated 09.06.2016 regarding case of Mr. Manoj Rana vs. Oriental Insurance Suit No. 103 of 2016 alongwith documents, wherein Rs. 45,075/-, Rs. 81,626/- and Rs. 91,989/- total Rs. 2,18,690/- has been incurred in the treatment of the complainant.
6. The District commission after perusing the material and evidence on the record passed the judgment on 19.03.2018 wherein it was held as under:-
"mijksDrkuqlkj ifjoknh }kjk ;ksftr ;g ifjokn foi{kh la0 1 rk 5 ds fo:) ¼la;qDrr% ,oa i`Fkdr%½ Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA mDr foi{khx.k dks vknsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os ifjoknh dks bykt O;; vadu 1]29]527@& ¼,d yk[k mUurhl gtkj ik¡p lkS lRrkbZl :i;s½] {kfriwfrZ ik¡p gtkj :i;s rFkk okn O;; ik¡p gtkj :i;s dk Hkqxrku djsaA foi{khx.k mijksDr /kujkf"k 30 fnu ds 5 Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others vUnj Hkqxrku djuk lqfuf"pr djsAa foi{kh la0 6] 7 o 8 dks okn ds nkf;Ro ls mUeksfpr fd;k tkrk gSA ;fn fufnZ'V vof/k esa Hkqxrku ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks ifjoknh mijksDr leLr /kujkf"k ij ifjokn çLrqr djus dh frfFk ls olwyh rd 8% okf'kZd C;kt Hkh ikus dk ik= gksxkA"
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the District Commission, the appellant - opposite party No. 1 has preferred the present appeal contending that the insurance policy is a contract between the parties, i.e. respondent No. 1 and appellant and the Commission can neither alter the terms and conditions of the contract nor can rewrite them. But the learned District Commission while passing the impugned judgment has failed to consider the evidence submitted by the complainant that he was suffering from Multiple Sclerosis and he took treatment for the same from Synergy Hospital as well as from AIIMS at Delhi; when he submitted papers regarding the treatment and its bills, they were sent to the opposite party No. 5, who is Third Party Agency (TPA) who put the file before its Doctors who mentioned that Multiple sclerosis is a Genetic Disorder and has recommended the claim for repudiation vide letter dated 03.03.2015, but the District Commission has not considered the above repudiation letter. As per the policy terms, Genetic Disorder and its complications are not payable. It is further alleged in the appeal that the District Commission has failed to consider that the complainant has taken insurance policy from the appellant which was in force from 18.05.2014 to 17.05.2015 alongwith its terms, conditions, exclusions and exceptions and that the insurance policy binds both insurer and insured. It is further averred that the District Commission has failed to consider that there was no deficiency in service 6 Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others on the part of the appellant, so there cannot be any liability of interest on appellant as has been ordered in the judgment, i.e. payment of interest. It is further averred that the District Commission has also failed to consider that the complainant has not come with clean hands, neither balance of convenience nor equity can be exercised in his favour. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the District Commission has against the facts and evidence available on record. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
8. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records available before us.
9. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a "Mediclaim Happy Family Floater Policy" bearing policy No. 253200/48/15/00378 from the opposite party No. 1 - appellant on dated 17.05.2014 with the insurance coverage of five members of his family for a sum of Rs. Three Lakhs for one year. It is also admitted that during the existence of policy in question, the complainant underwent medical treatment for his disease. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has got medical treatment in the various hospitals at different dates; the details are given as below:-
Sl. Name of the Hospital Date from Disease Expenses No. to diagnosed incurred Rs.
1 Himalayan Institute and 04.11.14 to Diplopia 26,769.92
Hospital, Jolly Grant, 08.11.14
Dehradun
2 Combined Medical 18.11.14 to Recurrent 20,085.00
Institute, Dehradun 21.11.14 Vomiting -
Ketosis Non-DM
and Electrolyte
Imbalance
3 Synergy Institute of 22.11.14 to Multiple
Medical Sciences, 29.11.14 Sclerosis
Dehradun 23.12.14 to CVA with acute
02.01.15 infarct right
7
Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023
59 of 2018 Vs.
Sh. Manoj Rana and Others
medulla,
superior, inferior
cerebellar
peduncles
13.01.15 to Multiples Total
22.01.15 Sclerosis amount
2,28,529.00
4 AIIMS, New Delhi 03.03.15 to Demyelinating 40,685.00
16.03.15 disease
10. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 had paid the insured amount to the tune of Rs. 1,70,473/- in part at three different dates to the complainant. Now the dispute between the parties rest for non-
payment of balance amount of Rs. 1,29,527/- to the complainant.
11. Now the question of consideration before us is whether the complainant was suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, which comes under the exclusion clause according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
12. We have perused the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which bears paper Nos. 35 to 45. At page No. 38, there is exclusion clause contained in the terms and conditions of the policy, wherein it is mentioned in clause No. 4:15 providing that Genetic Disorder and stem cell implantation / surgery are excluded.
13. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the expenses if incurred for the treatment of a disease of Multiple Sclerosis (Genetic Disorder) are not payable. Repudiation letter (paper No. 55) of the appellant company has revealed that the patient was treated for Multiple Sclerosis disease which is a genetic disorder and expense incurred towards genetic disorder are not payable, hence the claim has been repudiated.
14. The rival contention on behalf of the complainant - respondent No. 1 has been placed that this disease was not a genetic disorder; except 8 Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others the medical treatment paper of Synergy Hospital, there is nothing on record that the complainant was suffering from genetic disorder. The learned counsel for complainant has argued that as per medical paper of the AIIMS, New Delhi, his disease was not genetic disorder or Multiple Sclerosis, but as per the Government Hospital medical papers, his disease diagnosed as Demyelinating Disease (under Evaluation).
15. We have perused the first treatment medical paper of the complainant, which bears paper No. 46 of the appeal file, wherein under the diagnosed clause, the disease is mentioned as Diplopia under evaluation.
16. Now the question arises what is meant of the disease of Diplopia.
17. Diplopia (Double Vision): Double vision is usually a temporary issue, but it can also be a sign of more serious health conditions. Diplopia is often caused by other issues and conditions in your body and eyes. That's why it's so important to get your eyes checked right away when you notice any changes in your vision.
18. As per the disease description, the Diplopia is not a genetic disease. It is to note that in the discharge summary of Hospital Himalayan Hospital (paper No. 46), it is specifically mentioned that Diplopia is kept under evaluation and it was not confirmed that the complainant was suffering from the genetic disease. Thus, it is not proved that during the medical treatment from 04.11.2014 to 08.11.2014 the complainant was suffering from Multiple Sclerosis or any genetic disorder.
19. As per medical report (paper No. 23 of the record of District Commission) of CMI, Dehradun (discharge summary), the complainant was suffering from Recurrent Vomiting Ketosis non-DM Electrolyte Imbalance and during the treatment period from 18.11.2014 to 21.11.2014 9 Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others the complainant disease was not diagnosed as Diplopia. Ketosis is a metabolic state that occurs when your body burns fat for energy instead of glucose. The Keto diet has many possible benefits including potential weight loss, increased energy and treating chronic illness. However, the diet can produce side effects including 'Keto' breath and constipation.
21. As per the admitted fact the complainant underwent for medical treatment from 22.11.2014 for three times at Synergy Hospital and the report of the above mentioned hospital is available at paper No. 49 to 51 in the file of appellate Commission wherein under the column of the diagnosis, disease is mentioned as Multiple Sclerosis and in this medical report (paper No. 51 of the appeal record) of Synergy Hospital, the disease is diagnosed as Multiple Sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis is a disease in which the immune system eats away at the protective covering of nerves. In MS, resulting nerve damage disrupts communication between the brain and the body. In Multiple Sclerosis the body's own immune system attacks the central nervous system (CNS) and causes damage, which slows or stops nerve transmission.
22. As per research, the MS is not an inherited disease; this is not a disease which passed down from generation to generation. The medical report of the patient (complainant) was prepared under the supervision of Specialist Dr. Krishan Avtar, who was not produced as a witness before the District Commission stating that the Multiple Sclerosis is a genetic disease. In the absence of such evidence, the documents / medical papers of Synergy Hospital are not admissible in evidence.
10Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others
23. Moreover, in the grounds of appeal, the appellant - insurance company has averred that when the complainant submitted his medical papers regarding treatment and its bills, then it was sent to the opposite party No. 5 - MD, India Healthcare Services (Third Party Agency), who put the file before its doctor, who mentioned that Multiple Sclerosis is a genetic disorder and has recommended the claim vide letter dated 03.03.2015 for repudiation. But it is very surprising fact that the reports of such doctor, who had found that the Multiple Sclerosis is genetic disease has not been filed by the appellant company alongwith repudiation letter dated 03.03.2015 in order to prove that the Multiple Sclerosis is a genetic disorder.
24. Last treatment was taken by the complainant from AIIMS, New Delhi (paper No. 52 of the appeal record). The complainant has filed discharge summary report of the AIIMS, (Department of Neurology) New Delhi dated 16.03.2015, wherein Demyelinating Disease under Evaluation is mentioned under Diagnosis column. In this paper, medical case history is given as below:
"41 year old gentlemen who presented with complaints of diplopia, first episode he had vertigo and vomiting and it improved on iv steroids. He got 3 episodes of diplopia over 6 months in 2014. He improved on iv steroids each time. In December, 2014 he developed left side numbness and slurring of speech alongwith dysphagia to solids and liquids.
He was again given iv steroids to which he responded and was discharged in January. In February he developed diplopia again and this time self-medicated himself with steroids and his diplopia improved in 7 days. In March he 11 Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others developed headache with diplopia and numbness in his right side of face and slurring of speech. His deficit improved with five days of iv steroid after which he was shifted to oral steroids."
Past History Hypothyroid since 6 months on eltroxin, No h/o HTN/T2DM/TB Family History Insignificant"
25. As per the medical papers of AIIMS, New Delhi, the complainant was not suffering from Multiple Sclerosis disease. As per the above medical papers, the disease of the complainant was diagnosed as Demyelinating Disease (under Evaluation). Hence, it is not Multiple Sclerosis. As per the discharge summary of AIIMS, the father and fore-father of the complainant were not suffering from Multiple Sclerosis. So as per the medical evidence, it cannot be assumed that the complainant was suffering from any genetic disorder.
26. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied on cited case laws:-
i) M/s United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jai Prakash Tayal, decided on 26.02.2018, RFA 610 of 2016 and CM Nos. 45832 of 2017
ii) The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jay Prakash Tayal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 29590 of 2018 decided on 27.08.2018
27. In the case of M/s United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jai Prakash Tayal (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that:-
12Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others "E.25. The rejection of the claim of the Plaintiff on a premise that HOCM is a genetic disorder appears to be completely erroneous due to the divergent opinions which emerge from the record. Since, the clause itself is illegal and unconstitutional; the consequential rejection of the claim of the Plaintiff is contrary to law.
Conclusions & Relief:
F.1 To conclude:
(i) Right to avail health insurance is an integral part of the Right to Healthcare and the Right to Health, as recognized in Art. 21 of the Constitution;
(ii) Discrimination in health insurance against individuals based on their genetic disposition or genetic heritage, in the absence of appropriate genetic testing and laying down of intelligible differentia, is Unconstitutional;
(iii) The broad exclusion of genetic disorders‟ is thus not merely a contractual issue between the insurance company and the insured but spills into the broader canvas of Right to Health. There appears to be an urgent need to frame a proper framework to prevent against genetic discrimination as also to protect collection, preservation and confidentiality of genetic data.
Insurance companies are free to structure their contracts based on reasonable and intelligible factors which should not be arbitrary and in any case 13 Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others cannot be exclusionary. Such contracts have to be based on empirical testing and data and cannot be simply on the basis of subjective or vague factors. It is for lawmakers to take the necessary steps in this regard.
(iv) The Exclusionary clause of `genetic disorders', in the insurance policy, is too broad, ambiguous and discriminatory - hence violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India;
(v) Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDA) is directed to re-look at the Exclusionary clauses in insurance contracts and ensure that insurance companies do not reject claims on the basis of exclusions relating to genetic disorders F.2. The Trial Court has rightly held that a person, suffering from a genetic disorder, needs medical insurance as much as others. The suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest @12% from the date of filing of the claim with the Appellant Insurance Company till the date of payment;
F.3. The Plaintiff has been contesting the appeal for more than one and a half years and though the money has been released to him, he has submitted a bank guarantee to secure the said amount. The suit was filed in the year 2012. The Plaintiff is entitled to costs. Costs of Rs. 50,000/- are awarded. The bank guarantee submitted by the Plaintiff is released. All pending CMs are disposed of."
14Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others
28. In the case of The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jay Prakash Tayal (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the order that Until further orders, there shall be stay of operation of the judgment of the High Court dated 26.02.2018 to the aforesaid extent. Thus, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order, the judgment of Delhi High-Court passed in M/s United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jai Prakash Tayal is not set aside, but its operative portion was stayed only. As per the research, Genetic means the genes that may not functioning accurately who develop Multiple Sclerosis, but the complainant is an Advocate, who has filed his complaint before the District Commission, Dehradun. The District Commission has also found that the complainant was properly working and arguing in his case in right and proper manner. In the appeal, as respondent No. 1, the complainant is also contesting his case. It is not apparent from any corner that the respondent No. 1 was suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, whose genes were not functioning correctly. Moreover, the insurance company - appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence in regard to this effect that the father or grand-father of the complainant were also suffering from Multiple Sclerosis disease, therefore, the complainant has inherited the disease from his fore-father.
29. After analysis and the appreciation of the medical evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the insurance company has not succeeded to prove that the complainant was suffering from Genetic Disorder
30. The appellant has admitted that the claim amount of Rs. 1,70,473/- has already been paid to the complainant, whereas medical expenses of Synergy Hospital is of Rs. 2,28,529/- and total bill is of Rs. 3,16,068/-. It means the appellant company has approved the sum of medical bills of the (Multiple Sclerosis) disease of the complainant, hence, once the bills of the disease has been paid to the complainant by the insurance company, then 15 Appeal No. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 19.01.2023 59 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Manoj Rana and Others the company cannot take benefit of the exclusion clause as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, we are of the opinion that the District Commission has not committed any illegality and irregularity while passing the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment is appropriate and passed in justified manner. It does not suffer from any material illegality and infirmity. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. We are of the considered view that the impugned judgment deserves to be affirmed.
31. Appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment passed by the District Commission, Dehradun is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs.
32. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The copy of this order alongwith original record of the District Commission be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
33. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 19.01.2023 16