Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs RATANA SHARMA

THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 29.6.2002 passed by the DF whereby DF has held that the legal heirs of the complainant are beneficiaries. So they allowed the legal heirs to continue with the complaint after the death of the complainant. THIS order has been assailed by the O.P.-Insurance Company on various grounds, mainly on the ground that complaint dies with the personal death of the complainant and Consumer Protection Act has no provision for bringing the legal representatives on record.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Kapahi has argued that right arising from Consumer Protection Act is purely a personal right. It goes with the death of the person. In his support he has cited in M.L. Bajaj v. Dr. Y.P. Goel, II (1994) CPJ 165. On the other hand learned Counsel for other side has tried to convince us that once the complainant dies during the process of complaint the right of continuing with the complaint survives to the legal representatives. We have considered this argument. We have gone through the authorities also. We are not inclined to agree with the law laid down by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the above cited case on the ground that when the complainant dies during the proceedings his legal representatives step into the shoes of the complainant just like they are responsible for the liabilities and debts of the complainant. They are equally entitled to the rights and assets of the complainant. In this case complaint has been filed for medical claim. Complainant has secured insurance for medical expenses when he fell ill he was not given the medical claim for the deficiency in service. He filed the complaint and during the pendency of complaint he died. It does not stand to reason to dismiss the complaint because the complainant died. Complainant has paid the premium as required by law if the right has accrued to him which under no circumstances his legal representatives can be deprived of those rights. We have gone through the judgment passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Calcutta [See Kasturi Bhattacharji v. Sivaji Basu, I (1997) CPJ 575]. In this authority they have held medical negligence claim is not a contract of personal service. Personal service stems from a master and servant relationship which is totally different from lawyer and client relationship or other professional or technical relationship. Secondly, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no provision for bringing the legal representatives on record in the Consumer Protection Act. It is true that there is no provision in the Act because the Act is socially oriented Act. Very short procedure has been given so that the people can be benefited by disposing of the complaints within 3 months. It has been left to the Commission itself to evolve the procedure according to the requirement of cases. The said Act has nowhere expressly or impliedly denied the benefits of the Act to the legal representatives. Learned Counsel for the appellant has thirdly contended that even if legal representatives are allowed to pursue the claim after the death of their father, it is the Civil Court which is to determine the legal representatives. We dont agree with this contention also because we cannot leave the legal representatives could not be left to the mercy of Civil Courts because of long and lengthy procedure of Civil Courts for seeking justice. It is not such a matter which is intricate to determine the legal representatives of a deceased. More or less parties agreed to the fact as to who are the legal representatives. This is not a matter which will take much time for the DF to determine the legal representatives. Lastly, learned Counsel has contended the order impugned is signed by the President only while under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act orders should have been signed atleast by two Members including the President.

Here also argument is not tenable because the impugned order is an interim one. Learned DF has allowed legal representatives to continue with the complaint. This order does not finally decide the complaint itself. It is only final order which needs to be signed by atleast 2 Members including the President under Section 12 of the Act.

LASTLY, we are of the view that the definition of consumer squarely includes the beneficiary as well. Here the legal representatives of the claimant for medical claim are certainly included in the definition as beneficiaries so we cannot think of depriving them from the fruits of Consumer Protection Act. For these reasons, therefore, we dismiss the petition. Revision Petition dismissed.