STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 23.08.2025 Reserved on : 24.12.2025 Date of Decision : 16.01.2026 Manipal Cigna Health Insurance Company Limited (Formerly known as Cigna TTK Health Insurance Company Limited) having its registered office 401/402, 4^th Floor, Raheja Titanium, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063, through its Deputy Manager-Legal.

…..Petitioner/Opposite Party Versus Kako W/o Boota presently R/o Guru Nanak Colony, Bholewala Road, Faridkot and permanent R/o House No.163-B, Kothi Rai Sahib, Kahan Chand Wala, District Ferozepur.

…..Respondent/Complainant Revision Petition under Section 47 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridkot in C.C.

No.69 of 2025.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Present:-

For the Petitioner : Sh. Arif Qureshi, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. P.K. Bansal, Advocate

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 47(1)(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.07.2025, whereby the Applications filed by the OP had been dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridkot (in short the “District Commission”).

2. Briefly, the facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the present Revision Petition are that the Complainant filed C.C. No.69 of 2025 before the District Commission with the following prayer :-

“It is, therefore, prayed that the present Complaint filed by the Complainant may kindly be allowed and the Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to settle the claim of insurance policy supra by way of accepting the same and to settle the claim of the insurance policy as mentioned in the above para and/or any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum deems just and necessary, in the given circumstances be also granted in favor of the Complainant and against Opposite Parties, in the interest of justice.”

3. Notice in the Complaint was issued to the OP for appearance and to file reply. Reply was filed by the OP wherein certain preliminary objections were raised and other averments made in the Complaint were controverted.

4. During pendency of the Complaint, miscellaneous Application was moved for cross-examination of the Complainant and thereafter another Application was moved to summon the witnesses. Both the Applications were dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2025, which is reproduced as under :-

“The Opposite Parties moved an Application for permission to cross-examine the Complainant and another Application to issue summon to witness. Under the Consumer Protection Act summary procedure is adopted to decide the Complaints within stipulated period, as such both the Applications are dismissed. Now to come up for evidence of the Complainant on 11.08.2025.”

Said order dated 28.07.2025 has been challenged by the OP before this Commission by way of filing the present Revision Petition.

5. Mr. Arif Qureshi Advocate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is contrary to facts and law as the District Commission has committed a material irregularity while deciding the Applications moved by the Petitioner. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the District Commission has also failed to appreciate a material fact that case was required to be decided on the basis of best evidence available on the record and it was the duty of the Court to take into consideration all these material facts but still order has been passed. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the ev