ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH.

Date of Institution: 05.12.2022 Reserved on : 20.02.2026 Date of Decision : 09.03.2026

1. Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited, Y.P. Tower, Gurdaspur through its Branch Manager.

2. Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor Plot No.H C-12, G Block B.K.C. Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051.

.….Appellants/Opposite Parties Versus Usha Rani widow of Deepak Kumar, resident of Mirpur, Dadiala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur ……Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 19.09.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshiarpur in RBT/CC/171/2018 Quorum:-

Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Presiding Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member Argued by:-

For the appellants : Sh. K.S. Cheema, Advocate For respondent : Sh. Inderdeep Singh, Advocate ……………………………………………………………………….

KIRAN SIBAL, PRESIDING MEMBER M.A.No.1634 of 2022 (Additional Evidence)

This application has been filed by the appellants for placing on record certain documents i.e. affidavit of investigator, admission sheet dated 16.08.2012, patient history and ultrasound whole abdomen in additional evidence for the purpose of assisting this Commission. In reply to this application, the respondent/complainant has stated that the present application is not maintainable at this stage, as the appellants failed to show any plausible reason for adducing additional evidence.

2. Heard.

3. It is an admitted fact that all the above said documents were readily available with the applicants but they did not file the same in evidence before the District Commission for the reasons best known to them. Now at this appellate stage, they requested for tendering some documents in additional evidence, which is against the settled principle of law, as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as ‘State of Gujaraj & Ans. V. Mahendra Kumar Parshottam Bhai Desai’ (2006)9 SCC 772 that “the lacuna, as such, cannot be allowed to be filled up and the additional evidence was not required by the Court to enable it to pronounce judgment. The documents, as such, which were existing at the time when the evidence was being led, could not be allowed to be brought on record at a subsequent stage”.

4. It has also been clearly envisaged under order 41 Rule 27 of CPC that the party shall not be entitled to adduce the additional evidence at the appellate stage because they have to show the due diligence that they were not in possession of the documents at the trial stage. Since the said documents, were in the possession of the applicants/appellants, it was their duty to prove the same before the District Commission so that proper opportunity may also be given to the respondent/complainant to rebut the same, but at this stage when the case has been decided at the grassroots level by the District Commission, the appellants/OPs cannot be allowed to produce the documents at this belated stage. Accordingly, the present application for tendering documents in additional evidence, is hereby dismissed.

Main Case

5. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 against the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshiarpur, (in short “District Commission”), whereby the complaint of the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties (in short “OPs”) was partly allowed while granting the following relief:-

“12. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Finally, in the matter pertaining to the present complaint and in the light of the all above, we set aside the OP insurers’ impugned repudiation of the impugned death-claim being arbitrary (contra to laws of natural justice) and amounting to ‘deficiency in service’ and thus partly allow this complaint and ORDER the OP insurers to pay the same in full and in just