Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Kusumben vs United on 7 February, 2011

Author: R. Tripathi

Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/1694/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1694 of 2010
 

 
=================================================
 

KUSUMBEN
JASVANTRAY TRIVEDI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

UNITED
INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
BJ TRIVEDI for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR JT TRIVEDI for Petitioner(s) :
1,MS JIGNASA B TRIVEDI for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. 
MR PALAK H THAKKAR for Respondent(s) :
1, 
SERVED BY AFFIX.-(R) for Respondent(s) : 3,
 

Mr.VIBHUTI
NANAVATI for newly added respondent
no.4. 
=================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 07/02/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

Leave to amend and add Dr.Pratima Patankar, Manager, Operation, Alankit Healthcare TPA Limited, in her personal capacity as respondent no.4.

2. After the matter was heard in the morning and after Dr.Pratima Patankar, Manager, Operation, Alankit Healthcare TPA Limited submitted that on the service of the first notice issued by this Court she had contacted United India Insurance Company Limited and the United India Insurance Company Limited by an E-Mail message told Alankit Healthcare TPA Limited that it being a TPA (Third Party Administrator) it need not worry about the matter and United India Insurance Company Limited will be defending the case before the High Court. The matter was kept in the second half so as to enable her to put her house in order and trace the relevant papers and produce before the Court.

3. In the second half when the matter is called out learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati submitted that he is instructed to appear for Dr.Pratima Patankar, Manager, Operation, Alankit Healthcare TPA Limited, newly added respondent no.4 herein. The learned advocate is permitted. He is to file his Vakalatnama for respondent no.2 and also for Dr.Pratima Patankar, Manager, Operation, Alankit Healthcare TPA Limited. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavati is feeling handicapped in representing the case of respondent no.2 as well as that of Dr.Pratima Patankar, Manager, Operation, Alankit Healthcare TPA Limited on account of non availability of the documents.

After the matter was heard for some time the learned advocate for respondent no.2 and newly added respondent no.4-Dr.Pratima Patankar, Manager, Operation, Alankit Healthcare TPA Limited, submitted that respondent no.2 as well newly added respondent no.4 are ready to file unconditional apology to this Court for having not responded to the notice of this Court with the required diligence and also for the contents of Annexure 'G'- letter dated 5th June 2010, which is though addressed to the petitioner, is not sent to the address of the petitioner, which was furnished to the Insurance Company. The learned advocate for respondents no.2 and 4 also submitted on instructions that they are ready to bear any cost for the inconvenience caused to the petitioner

- a senior citizen (lady). The Court is of the opinion that taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen and a lady, who is made to undergo untold hardships, if respondent no.2 and Dr.Pratima Patankar, Manager, Operation, Alankit Healthcare TPA Limited, agree to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) it will meet the ends of justice. At the request of learned advocate for respondents no.2 and 4 the matter is kept on 9th February 2011.

4. At this juncture, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as a gesture of good will and to make it clear that the petitioner is not out to get herself enriched by this cost amount, half of the cost be paid to the Legal Services Authority. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this payment of half the cost to the Legal Services Authority will be befitting to the cause of redressal of her grievance which emerged due to unnecessary and out of proportion harassment.

(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) karim     Top