HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs Govind Prasad Gupta

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 742 of 2012 HDFC ERGO General Ins Co. Ltd. Vs. Govind Prasad and Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent obtained family floater policy from OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 14.5.2011 to 13.05.2012. On 10.10.2011, complainant being indisposed got himself admitted in Dr. Kothari Surgical Nursing Home, Bansvara. He remained under treatment there for two days. There being no improvement in the condition of the complainant, he was referred to Swai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur on 12.10.2011, where he was treated from 12.10.2011 to 17.10.2011 for Acute Pancreatitis. Thereafter, the complainant remained in Jaipur. From 5.11.2011 to 23.11.2011 the complainant was again treated in Swai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur. There being no improvement he was admitted in Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur. There he was treated for 12 days till 4.12.2011. In this way a sum of Rs. 14,40,000/ - was spent on treatment in 39 days in different hospitals. Complainant submitted claim which was repudiated without any sufficient reason. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP No. 1 was proceeded ex -parte as notice not received back after lapse of one month and none appeared on behalf of OP No. 2 even after service, he was proceeded ex -parte. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to pay Rs.1,03,352 with 7% p.a. interest and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/ - as compensation and Rs.1,000/ - as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay of 121 days and submitted that there are number of competent authorities in the hierarchy to come to a conclusion to file an appeal which took time in filing revision petition; hence, delay may be condoned. In the application for condonation of delay, no date wise explanation has been given by petitioner for condonation of delay, but as order of State Commission is not speaking order and OP No. 1 against whom

District forum passed order was proceeded ex -parte on the basis of presumption, I deem it appropriate to condone delay of 121 days in filing revision petition on payment of Rs.5,000/ - as cost in the light of latest judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court in (1) Civil Appeal Nos. 10120 -10121 of 2014 Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors and Anr; (2) Civil Appeal No. 10289 of 2014 A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India; and (3) Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2014 Taipen Traders Ltd. and Anr. Vs. M/s. Bhawani Cold Storage and Ors. by which delay of 135 days, 149 days and 218 days, respectively in initiating revision petition was condoned.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as OPs were proceeded ex -parte by District Forum and impugned order is not speaking order revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to dispose of appeal by speaking order. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

HON ''ble Apex Court in HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under: "1.In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms:

''We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well -reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal''.

We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission".

IN the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the aspects and arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with any facts of the case and arguments of the appellant, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the parties.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 742 of 2012 HDFC ERGO General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Govind Prasad and Anr. is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding it by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 26.5.2015.