NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BHAGYAMMA
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Click here to view full judgement.
Dinesh Singh,J. -
(1.) Taken up through video conferencing.
1. This has reference in the Order dated 15.10.2020 and the Order dated 17.12.2020.
2. The Order dated 15.10.2020 reads as below:
Dated : 15-10-2020
1. Taken up through video conferencing.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist insurance co.
3. Perused the material on record.
4. The operative portion of the impugned Order dated 10.07.2019 of the State Commission reads as below:
1. The above appeals are allowed in part. 2.The impugned order dated 25.03.2011 passed in C.C. No.63/2009 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Davangere is hereby modified directed the Opposite Party Nos.1, 2 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant, consequently complaint against the Opposite Party No.3 is dismissed.
3.Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Forum for disbursement to the complainant.
4.Return LCR forth with.
5.Keep original order in Appeal No. 1374/2011 and a copy thereof in appeal Nos.1410/2011, 1434/2011 and 1717/2011.
6.Notify the order to the parties as well as District Forum.
5. The revisionist insurance co. was the opposite party no. 4 before the District Forum and has been so referred to by the State Commission in its impugned Order. Learned counsel for the insurance co. submits that it had insured the opposite party no. 3, Dr. Santosh UP, against whom the complaint has been dismissed by the State Commission.
He also submits that it had not insured the opposite party no. 1, Bapuji Hospital. He further submits that the State Commission has erroneously recorded in para 18 of its Order that the insurance co. had insured the hospital. He furthermore submits that the State Commission has erroneously included it, the insurance co., the opposite party no. 4, in para 19 of its Order while observing that "- - - resulted in mismanagement of entire situation which amounts to negligence as well as deficiency in service. - - - "; the insurance co. was just the insurer of one of the doctors (the opposite party no. 3) and had nothing to do per se with the incident of medical negligence / deficiency.
6. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay and on the petition to the respondents, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent no. 1 / complainant within four weeks from today to defray travel and allied expenses.
7. The Registry may ensure that the notice is issued and despatched within ten days.
8. Let the notice also be 'dasti' in addition.
9. The petitioner / insurance co. shall ensure the due 'dasti' service of the notice on the respondents, without fail, before the next date of hearing.
10. List on 17.12.2020.
11. The operation of the impugned Order in so far as it relates to the revisionist insurance co. i.e. the opposite party no. 4 before the District Forum shall remain stayed. It is made explicit and categorical that the operation of the impugned Order against the opposite parties no. 1 and no. 2 i.e. Bapuji Hospital and Dr. Ravikumar is not being stayed. The natural corollary is that the opposite parties no. 1 and no. 2 shall continue to be jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant as recorded in the operative portion of the State Commission's Order (quoted in para 4 above).
(3.) The short point in this revision is whether or not the respondent no. 2, who was the opposite party no. 1 before the District Forum, had, in fact, been insured by the petitioner insurance company, who was the opposite party no. 4 before the District Forum.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.