ORDER

HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

          Taken up through video conferencing.

1.       This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 15.04.2013 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’, in F.A.s No. 425 of 2009 and No. 649 of 2009 arising out of the Order dated 31.01.2009 in C.C. No. 195 of 2007 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Beed, hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’.

The Petitioner, The National Insurance Company Ltd., was the Opposite Party No. 3 before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Insurance Co.’.

The original Respondent No. 1, Shaikh Mahmood, was the Complainant before the District Forum, he expired during the pendency of the proceedings before this Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.

The extant Respondents No. 1 to No. 9, Julekha Begum (wife of the deceased Complainant), Shaikh Jafar Shaikh Mahmood, Shaikh Mazar Mahmood, Shaikh Juber Shaikh Mahmood, Shaikh Zaber Shaikh Mahmood, Shaikh Azhar Shaikh Mahmood, Shaikh Abdul Rahman Mused (all sons of the deceased Complainant), Sadiya Fatima (unmarried daughter of the deceased Complainant) and Farida (widowed daughter of the deceased Complainant), are the Legal Heirs of the Complainant, and are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Legal Heirs’.

The original Respondents No. 2 and No. 3, who are the extant Respondents No. 10 and No. 11 (after substitution of the Legal Heirs of the original Respondent No. 1, the deceased Complainant, as Respondents No. 1 to No. 9), Dr. Sopanrao Patil and Dr. Nayana w/o Dr. Sopanrao Patil, were Opposite Parties No. 1 and No. 2 before the District Forum, and are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Doctor 1’ and the ‘Doctor 2’ respectively.

Vide Order dated 09.11.2016 the Doctor 1 and the Doctor 2 were proceeded against ex parte. However, vide subsequent Order dated 20.09.2017 it was inter alia directed that notice be issued again to the Doctor 1 and the Doctor 2.

Vide Order dated 20.09.2017 the Legal Heirs of the Complainant were substituted.  

2.       A perusal of the daily Orders from 20.09.2017 i.e. from the date the Legal Heirs were ordered to be substituted shows that till the date of the last hearing i.e. till 23.11.2020 the Legal Heirs had not been served by the Insurance Co.

Explicit mention is (inter alia) made in the daily Order of 06.08.2019 that:

“It is seen from the record that Legal Heirs of respondent no. 1 are not yet served. Similarly, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have also not been served.”

That is to say, the Legal Heirs and the Doctor 1 and Doctor 2 were yet to be served.

Again, explicit mention is (inter alia) made in the daily Order of 11.11.2020 that:

“As is evident from the previous Orders dated 02.07.2020 and dated 06.08.2019, the legal heirs of the resp