The burden of proving allegations of non-disclosure in insurance contracts lies strictly upon the insurer; the Consumer Commission is not required to act as an investigative agency to produce evidence to support the insurer's allegations, and evidence-gathering must not defeat the statutory objective of summary, speedy disposal.

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/OPs under Section 47(1)(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2025, whereby the additional evidence was closed by orders by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short the “District Commission”) in C.C. No.317 of 2021.

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.317 of 2021 before the District Commission with the following prayer :-

“(i) The opposite parties be directed to release the claim amount of Rs.70,00,000/- in favour of the complainant along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. to the complainant forthwith.

(ii) Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- may also be granted in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

(iii) Costs of the proceedings amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- may also be granted to the complainant.

(iv) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to under the law may also be granted in her favour and against the opposite parties.”

3. Notice in the Complaint was issued to the OPs for appearance and to file reply. Petitioners/OPs had appeared before the District Commission and filed written statements wherein certain preliminary objections were raised and the other averments made in the Complaint were controverted.

4. During the pendency of the Complaint, a miscellaneous Application was moved for additional evidence for summoning the record of the Insurance Policies held by DLA with other Insurance Companies. Said Application was kept pending by the District Commission vide order dated 10.12.2022. The District Commission vide order dated 21.01.2025 had allowed the Application for additional evidence by granting one opportunity to the Petitioner and 7 witnesses were summoned for 04.02.2025. Out of 7 witness, some were examined and two witness sought time for bringing the record. Thereafter, the District Commission had closed the additional evidence, vide order dated 04.02.2025, which is reproduced as under :-

“Case file taken up today. 4 RWs examined. Opposite parties seek time for remaining additional evidence. But in terms of previous order no further opportunity can be granted to the opposite parties for evidence. Since case pertains to 2021, hence additional evidence stands closed by order. Now come up for arguments to 17.2.2025.”

Said order dated 04.02.2025 has been challenged by the OP before this Commission by way of filing the present Revision Petition.

5. Mr. Sanjeev Goyal 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 had committed a material irregularity while closing the additional evidence by order. He has further submitted that in the present case, the witnesses were duly served and some witnesses requested for more time to produce some documents as there was no fault on the part of the Petitioner and closing the evidence by order had resulted into miscarriage of justice and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel has further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the District Commission had failed to exercise the power as provided under Section 38(9) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 wherein it has been provided