SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
Taken up through video conferencing
National Insurance Company Limited – Petitioner
versus
Bhagyamma and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.790 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 10/07/2019 in Appeal No.1374/2011 of the State Commission Karnataka)
Decided on 4.2.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Chandrakant Angadi, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Nemo

IMPORTANT POINT
Liability to pay for medical negligence cannot be affixed upon Insurance Company, in absence of Insurance coverage in this regard.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21 and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 2(11)] – Medical Negligence – Liability to pay – Legality of affixation – At par materials on record petitioner – Insurance Company had in fact, had insured the Opposite Party No.1 – Hospital – State Commission made a mistake of fact in recording that Opposite Party No.1 – Hospital had been insured by Opposite Party No. 4 – Insurance Company – Therefore, State Commission erred in making the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable along with Opposite Party No.1 and No.2, against whom medical negligence has been determined – Impugned award modified to the extent that Insurance Company would not be liable – Direction issued.

Held: Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner insurance company (which is a public sector undertaking) that, on the basis of its official record, the petitioner insurance company had, in fact, not insured the opposite party no. 1 hospital, it evinces that the State Commission made a mistake of fact in recording that the opposite party no. 1 hospital had been insured by the opposite party no. 4 insurance company, and, as a natural corollary thereto, the State Commission made an error in making the opposite party no. 4 insurance company jointly and severally liable along with the opposite party no. 1 hospital and the opposite party no. 2 doctor against whom the medical negligence had been determined.

The award made by the State Commission is therefore modified to the extent that the opposite party no. 4 shall not be liable. The liability, joint and several, shall be only of the opposite party no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2.

It goes without saying that the award made by the State Commission in so far as it relates to the joint and several liability of the opposite party no. 1 hospital and the opposite party no. 2 doctor is in no manner affected or interfered with by the instant Order of this Commission. The District Forum shall undertake execution of the award in its entirety against the opposite party no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2, jointly and severally, as per the law. (Paras 9 to 11)

Result: Petition Disposed of.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member.—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

ORDER

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:

ORDER

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.

4. The Registry has reported that postal service of the notice has been effected on (inter alia) the respondent no. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner insurance company submits that the respondent no. 2 was informed of the case and of the date of hearing and that he declined to accept the ‘dasti’ notice saying that notice had already been received by him through the Registr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top