IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2024 (Against the Order dated 07.03.2024 in MA No. 258/2023 of the State Commission, UP)

WITH IA/7718/2024 (Stay), IA/7719/2024 (Condonation of delay), IA/7720/2024 (Exemption of file typed copies of documents)

1. Bharat Hospital, (Ashutosh Hospital & Trauma Centre Pvt. Ltd.)

15/20, Hasimpur road, Infront of Kamla Nehru Hospital, Prayagraj U.P., through its Proprietor Dr. U.B. Yadav

2. Dr. U. B. Yadav, M.s. (Ortho), Bharat Hospital, 15/20, Hasimpur road, Infront of Kamla Nehru Hospital, Prayagraj U.P.

3. Dr. Ashish Tondon (M.D.), Tondon Chest & Sleep centre, 17-A/03, Patrika marg, Civil lines, Behind Regency Hospital, Prayagraj, U.P.

4. Dr. N. N. Dubey, C/o Anand Hospital, 11/17, kasturbha Gandhi marg, Muir road crossing, Prayagraj, U.P.

5. Anand Hospital, 11/17, Kasturbha Gandhi marg, Muir road crossing, Prayagraj, U.P.

Through its director Dr. N. N. Dubey Appellants Versus . FA/330/2024 Page 1 of 4

1. Smita Mishra,w/o late Dharmendra Kumar Mishra

2. Harshita Mishra, minor) all daughters of late Dharmendra

3. Shreya Mishra, minor, ) Kumar Mishra; through their natural

4. Shahnavi Misra, minor) guardian Smt. Smita Mishra All r/o Village Srinathpur, Post Rajgarh, District Police Station, Kotwali nagar, Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh Respondents BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), MEMBER For the Appellant (s) : NEMO For the Respondent (s) : Ms. Namrata Chandorkar, Advocate Dated : 24.02.2025

ORDER (ORAL)

1.. This First Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the Order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh ("State Commission"). The order pertained to the dismissal of Miscellaneous Application No. 258 of 2023 in Complaint Case No.

C/250/2015.

2. In the present First Appeal, the Appellants/OP sought the following:

a. Allowing the appeal b. Calling for State Commission records.

c. Setting aside the interim order dated 07.03.2024 d. Pass necessary directions/orders directing for impleadment of Insurance Company in the said Complaint case.

FA/330/2024

3.

The learned counsel for the Appellants stated in his grounds that the impleadment of the insurance company was necessary as Insurance Company has covered the Professional indemnity coverage of doctors. He sought to allow the First Appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission, impleaded the insurance company as a party in the Complaint. He relied upon the following judgments:

A. DR. C. C. Choubal Vs. Pankaj Srivastava, R.P. No.1454 of

2003, decided on 29.05.2003;

B. AMAN JAIN HOSPITAL Vs. DEVKINANDAN SONI, F.A. NO.

801 OF 2015, decided on 15.10.2015.

4. We have examined the pleadings, associated documents and the impugned order placed on record and heard the learned counsels for both the parties.

5.

As regards impleadment of Insurance Companies to the complaint, in terms of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, the court may add a party at any stage, if their presence is necessary for effective adjudication. The insurance companies are deemed proper but not necessary parties in this medical negligence case. Adding them would delay the proceedings without affecting the primary issue's resolution.

FA/330/2024

6.

In Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others versus Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 773) decided on16.09.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

“As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the domius !ilLs- Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs."

7. Following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour