National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Professional Protection Linked vs Tmt. Gajalakshmi & 7 Ors. on 18 July, 2023
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2021 (Against the Order dated 24/11/2020 in Complaint No. 5/2014 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) 1. PROFESSIONAL PROTECTION LINKED SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME OF INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION IMA, TAMIL NADU (HOSPITAL PROTECTION SHCEME) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C/O KGM HOSPITAL, POLLACHI-642 002 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. TMT. GAJALAKSHMI & 7 ORS. W/O LATE N.L. NARAYANASAMY, 44 (OLD NO. 50/5) EAGAVALLIAMMAN KOVIL STREET, THIRUVOTRIYUR, CHENNAI-600 019 2. MS. SASIREKHA D/O LATE N.L. NARAYANASAMY 44 (OLD NO. 50/5) EAGAVALLIAMMAN KOVIL STREET, THIRUVOTRIYUR, CHENNAI-600 019 3. MAGESH KUMAR D/O LATE N.L. NARAYANASAMY 44 (OLD NO. 50/5) EAGAVALLIAMMAN KOVIL STREET, THIRUVOTRIYUR CHENNAI-600 019 4. SHENBAGAM HOSPITALS (P) ANNA NAGAR MADURAI-625 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 5. DR. S.S. ANNAMALAISAMY, MD, MRCP, CONSULTANT SHENBAGAM HOSPITAL (P) LTD. ANNA NAGAR, MADURAI-625 020 6. APOLLO SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LAKE VIEW ROAD, K.K. NAGAR, MADURAI-625 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 7. DR.SK.K.P. KARUPPIAH, M.D., M.R.C.P., CONSULTANT APOLLO SPCIALITY HOSPITAL LAKE VIEW ROAD K.K. NAGAR, MADURAI-625 020 8. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. MADURAI DIVISION OFFICE-III 161-A, EAST VELI STREET, MADURAI-625 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 116 OF 2021 (Against the Order dated 24/11/2020 in Complaint No. 5/2014 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) 1. PROFESSIONAL PROTECTION LINKED SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME OF INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION IMA, TAMIL NADU
(HOSPITAL PROTECTION SCHEME) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C/O KGM HOSPITAL, POLLACHI-642 002 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. TMT. GAJALAKSHMI & 7 ORS. W/O LATE N.L. NARAYANASAMY 44 (OLD NO. 50/5) EAGAVALLIAMMAN KOVIL STREET, THIRUVOTRIYUR, CHENNAI-600 019 2. MS. SASIREKHA D/O LATE N.L. NARAYANASAMY 44 (OLD NO. 50/5) EAGAVALLIAMMAN KOVIL STREET, THIRUVOTRIYUR, CHENNAI-600 019 3. MANGESH KUMAR D/O LATE N.L. NARAYANASAMY 44 (OLD NO. 50/5) EAGAVALLIAMMAN KOVIL STREET, THIRUVOTRIYUR, CHENNAI-600 019 4. SHENBAGAM HOSPITALS (P) ANNA NAGAR, MADURAI-625 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 5. DR.S.S.ANNAMALAISAMY,MD,MRCP, CONSULTANT SHENBAGAM HOSPITALS (P) LTD.
ANNA NAGAR, MADURAI-625 020 6. APOLLO SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LAKE VIEW ROAD K.K. NAGAR, MADURAI-625 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 7. DR.S.K.P.KARUPPIAH, CONSULTANT APOLLO SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, LAKE VIEW ROAD, K.K. NAGAR, MADURAI-625 020 8. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. MADURAI DIVISION OFFICE -III, 161-A, EAST VELI STREET, MADURAI-625 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. VIKAS MEHTA, ADVOCATE WITH MR. BHASKAR NAIK, ADVOCATE Dated : 18 July 2023 ORDER
1. These two (02 nos.) Appeals i.e., First Appeal No. 115 of 2021 and First Appeal No.116 of 2201 filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are in challenge to two (02 nos.) of impugned Orders dated 24.11.2020 arising out of M.P. No. 113 of 2019 and M.P. No. 114 of 2019 respectively in the same complaint no. 05 of 2014.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the opposite party no.5 before the State Commission) and perused the record including inter alia the two impugned Orders dated 24.11.2020 passed by the State Commission and the memoranda of appeal.
3. These two (02 nos.) First Appeals have been filed with reported delay of 25 days each.
However, in the interest of justice, inter alia having regard to the reasons contained in the applications for condonation of delay and in order to decide the matters on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned.
4. The First Appeal No. 116 of 2021 is arising out of the impugned Order dated 24.11.2020 of the State Commission vide which it disallowed the Miscellaneous Petition No.114 of 2019 filed by the appellant (the opposite party no. 5 before the State Commission) and the written version that was filed with the delay of 749 days was refused to be taken on record and the delay in filing the same was not condoned. .
Another First Appeal No. 115 of 2021 is arising out of the impugned Order dated 24.11.2020 of the State Commission vide which it dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition No.113 of 2019 filed by the appellant (the opposite party no. 5 before the State Commission) to set aside the ex parte Order dated 21.07.2017 passed against it and to receive its written version.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to place any meaningful or substantial arguments on the basis of which the two impugned Orders may be assailed or castigated. The only submission that was emphasized by the learned counsel is that though as per law the appellant has been deprived from the opportunity to file its written version or to lead any evidence but let him be permitted to watch the proceedings and address the Bench at the time of final hearing only to render its assistance in order to arrive at a just conclusion. It was submitted that such a permission to the appellant would be innocuous and shall not interfere or impede the proceedings of the State Commission in any way at all. Contention is that in fact such a course may help and go to some extent towards arriving at the ends of conscionable justice.
6. Perused the record in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The impugned Order dated 24.11.2020 passed in miscellaneous petition no.114 of 2019 whereby the State Commission has refused to receive the written version filed with the delay of 749 days is a very well-reasoned order in which all facets of law and facts have been very well discussed. This Bench is of the considered view that the said impugned Order is indeed unassailable and there is hardly any ground to reproach the same, either on the ground of facts or on the ground of law. Another impugned Order dated 24.11.2020 vide which it dismissed miscellaneous petition no.113 of 2019 filed by the appellant, (the opposite party no.5 before the State Commission) seeking to set aside the ex parte Order dated 21.07.2017 passed against it and to receive the written version, too seems to be an inevitable sequel to the other impugned Order and flows out as its concomitant corollary. There is no good reason to challenge its validity.
7. It is obvious that the appellant (opposite party no.5 before the State Commission) can neither adduce or file evidence nor can participate in the proceedings for the purposes of leading or rebutting any kind of evidence, therefore, the proceedings that might have taken place by now or may take place in future shall remain completely uninterfered with by the appellant.
However so far as the opportunity to address the State Commission at the time of final hearing in order to assist it is concerned, the Bench is of the considered view that it is unlikely to occasion any harm if the appellant is so permitted. In fact, the Bench does not see the prospect of any detrimental effect being caused in the proceedings if the appellant is permitted to address the arguments at the time of final hearing before the State Commission. Any submissions made on behalf of the appellant at the time of final hearing which are based on admissible evidence available on record may be considered by the State Commission and be appreciated and weighed usefully for its worth.
8. Keeping in view the larger interest of justice and the overall facts and circumstances as well as the object of the Act in order to arrive at the ends of fair consumer justice, it is deemed appropriate to observe that the State Commission at the time of final hearing would do well to permit the appellant, (the opposite party no. 5 before the State Commission) in judicious exercise of its discretion to address the State Commission for the purpose of arriving at a just conclusion in the matter.
9. With the aforesaid observations, both Appeals, i.e. First Appeal No. 115 of 2021 and First Appeal No. 116 of 2021 stand disposed of accordingly.
10. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
..................................................J KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE PRESIDING MEMBER