State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Geeta Diagnostic Centre,Bharatpur vs Smt.Usha Agarwal & Ors. on 21 January, 2010
Revision Petition No.18/2009 1.Geeta Diagnostic Centre, Bharatpur. 2.Dr.T.K.Garg,Proprietor,Geeta Diagnostic Centre,Bharatpur. Petitioners V. 1.Smt.Usha Agarwal r/o Near Mathura Gate,Bharatpur. Complainant Respondent 2.District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,Bharatpur. Professor J.M.Mehta,Head of Surgery,SMS Medical College and Hospital,Jaipur. Respondents Before Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs Vimla Sethiya-Member
Shri Anurag Kulshrestha,counsel for the petitioners Smt.Pradeep Lata Mathur,counsel for the res.no.1 None for res.no.3 Date of Judgement: 21.01.2010 BY THE STATE COMMISSION:
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners who were op no.1 & 2 before the District Forum,Bharatpur against the order dated 9.6.09 passed by the District Foruum,Bharatpur by which the application filed by the petitioners for impleading National Insurance Company as one 2 of the op was rejected.
It may be stated here that the complainant res.no.1 had filed a complaint making a case of medical negligence against the petitioners as well as res.no.3 before the District Forum on 22.3.06.
A reply was filed by the petitioners before the District Forum on 24.6.06 and in para no.22 of the reply a plea was taken by the petitioners that the hospital of the petitioners was got insured for a sum of Rs.10 lacs with the National Insurance Company for the period 30.6.2005 to 29.5.2006 and,therefore,the National Insurance Company was a necessary party and in absence of that the complaint was not maintainable.
It may further be stated here that though this plea was taken by the petitioners in their reply which was filed on 24.6.06, but the proceedings of the complaint were going on and ultimately an application was moved by the petitioners on 17.4.2009 that in the complaint filed by the complainant res.no.1,the National Insurance Company be added as op no.4, but that application was rejected by the District Forum through order dated 9.6.09 and the ground on which the application was rejected was that the application for impleading the National Insurance Company was filed with a delay and at the stage when the complaint was fixed for final arguments.
Aggrieved from that order,this revision petition has been filed by the petitioners and the main case of the petitioners is that no doubt,there is a delay in filing that application, but since the plea that the National Insurance Company was a necessary party has been taken in the reply,therefore,from that point of view 3 also,the application should have been allowed and thus the impugned order dated 9.6.09 suffers from basic infirmity and illegality and be quashed and set aside and revision petition be allowed.
On the other hand,the learned counsel for the complainant res.no.1 has supported the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and res.no.1.
In our considered opinion,no doubt this application has been filed with a delay by which it was stated that the National Insurance Company be added as op no.4 in the complaint, but taking into consideration that the hospital of the petitioners was insured with the National Insurance Company for which a cover note has been filed and taking into consideration that this plea was taken by the petitioners in their reply filed on 24.6.06,therefore,this Commission is of the view that if a party is found necessary party that can be added at any stage though for that delay some cost should be imposed.
It may further be stated here that in the present case the National Insurance Company appears to be not only a proper party,but a necessary party and for that reason also this application must have been allowed by the District Forum.
It may further be clarified here that it is not the requirement of law that an application for addition of a party as defendant(op) must be made at a particular stage of the trial.
Taking into consideration all aspects of the matter the 4 application should have been allowed and since the same was not allowed the impugned order dated 9.6.09 suffers from basic infirmity and illegality and deserves to be quashed and set asie and this revision petition deserves to be allowed at cost of Rs.5000/- that would be paid by the petitioners to the complainant res.no.1.
For reasons as stated above,this revision petition filed by the petitioners is allowed,impugned order dated 9.6.09 passed by the District Forum,Bharatpur is quashed and set aside and the complainant res.no.1 is directed to file the amended complaint before the District Forum,Bharatpur on or before 10.02.2010 adding the National Insurance Company as op no.4, but the petitioners would pay Rs.5000/- as amount of cost to the complainant res.no.1. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum,Bharatpur on 10.02.2010 and the District Forum,Bharatpur is directed to expedite the trial of the complaint and would decide the complaint within three months from the above date.
Member President