NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
(From the order dated 29.8.02 in Appeal No.551,559 & 560/99
of the State Commission Punjab)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Hardip Singh
2. Karamjit Singh
3. Smt. Balwinder Kaur
4. Walia Nursing Home, Patiala
5. Dr. R.P.S. Walia, M.S. (Surgery)
6. Dr. Ajay Goyal, M.D. (Anaestheticst)
7. National Insurance Co., Patiala
8. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Patiala
9. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., through its
Divisional Office, Patiala. Respondents
(From the order dated 29.8.02 in Appeal No.836/99
of the State Commission Punjab)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Harpreet Sing, Minor son of Ajaib Singh
2. Sh. Ajaib Singh
3. Smt. Kuldip Kaur
4. Singla Bone and Joints Hospital
5. Dr. P.K. Singhla Respondents
BEFORE:
HONBLE
MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,
PRESIDENT
HONBLE
MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER
MRS.
RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER.
MR.
B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER.
Insurance - Insurance taken by medical
practitioner - In a complaint medical
practitioner held to be negligent -
Duty of the Insurance Company to pay under the policy - Right of
Insurance Company to challenge the finding of negligence against the medical
practitioner deprecated.
For the petitioner in RP 2640/02 : Mr. Vishnu Mehra,
Advocate
For the respondent in RP 2648/02 : Mr. Sanjiv Sharma,
Advocate
O R D E R
DATED THE 20th
December, 2002.
JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT)
Both these petitions
have been filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. through two different
counsel. These are against the orders
of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upholding the orders
of the District Forum wherein it was held that the medical doctors who were
opposite parties in the complaint were negligent in the treatment of the
patient. No relief as such was claimed
in the complaints against the petitioner-Insurance Company and as far as
complainants were concerned Insurance Company was proforma party to meet the liability arising out of the
finding arrived at by the Consumer
Forum that doctors who were covered by the
insurance polices issued by the Insurance Company, were guilty of
medical negligence. Complainants could
not have perhaps proceeded against the Insurance Company otherwise.
The three complainants
had filed complaint in the District
Forum against seven opposite parties. In this case Dr. R.P.S. Walia
is accused of medical negligence while performing the operation of gall bladder of Mohinder Kaur. Dr. Ajay Goel was the anaesthetist at the
time of operation. Allegations
were on account of negligence of the
doctors both the surgeon and
anaesthetist. Mohinder Kaur developed
a ventricular techycardia followed by
ventricular fabrillation. She
suffered cardiac dysrhy-thmia, went
into coma and did not regain consciousness.
First complainant is the husband of
Mohinder Kaur and second and third
complainants are children. As noted above, complaining negligence
which resulted in the condition of Mohinder Kaur, complaint was filed
against the Nursing Home, the
first opposite party (respondent No.4
herein), Dr. Walia, second opposite party
(opposite party No.5 herein) and Dr. Geol, third opposite party (respondent No.6
herein). The Nursing Home was insured
with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 8&9 herein),
Dr. Walia with National Insurance
Company Ltd. (respondent No. 7 herein)
and Dr. Geol both with United India Insurance Company Ltd. and New
India Assurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 8 & 9 herein and
petitioner). Holding that it was a
case of medical negligence on the part of the Nursing Home and the two doctors,
the District Forum allowed the
complaint and passed the following order:
For the
foregoing reasons the complaint is allowed.
Mohinder Kaur is aged about 45 years.
She is bed ridden and lying in Semi-conscious condition.
Considering the entire set of
circumstances, the complainants are awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-
against the opposite parties. The
liability of opposite parties shall be joint and several. The opposite party No.1 is insured with the opposite party No.5. The opposite party No.2 is insured with the
opposite party No.4 and the opposite party No.3 is insured with opposite party
No.6 & 7. The insurance companies
shall be liable to indemnify the insured.
The complainants shall also be entitled to interest of 12% p.a. from the
date of filing of complaint i.e. 21.3.1997 till realisation and shall also be
entitled to costs of Rs.1000/-.
Against the order of the
District Forum three appeals were filed.
Appeal No.551/99 by the United
India Insurance Co., Ltd. Appeal No.559
by Dr. Walia jointly with National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Appeal No.560/99 by New India Assurance Co. Before the State Commission the only
challenge by the Insurance Co. was
that the impugned order of the District Forum did not spell out ratio of compensation payable in respect of
each of the Insurance Companies. All
the appeals were dismissed by the State Commission. Impugned order was passed in appeal No.551/99. Now it is the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. which
felt aggrieved of the order of the State Commission and has filed this
petition. There is no doubt that there
was insurance cover given by the petitioner-Insurance Company and the Insurance
Company was to indemnify the doctors on account of any negligence with clear finding of negligence by the District Forum and affirmed by the State
Commission. It was incumbent on the
Insurance Company to pay the amount
under the policy and not to file this petition alleging that there is no
medical negligence on the part of the doctors.
It is not the case of the Insurance Company that doctor conceded to the
judgment or there was any understanding between the complainants and the
doctors. It is a matter of common
knowledge that no medical doctor would have a finding of negligence returned
against him and he fights the case to
be best of his ability. Perhaps that
was not enough for the Insurance Company
to pay up the amount under the policy.
We certainly do not appreciate the action of the Insurance Company in
challenging the order of the State Commission.
It has been submitted by
Mr.Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel for
the petitioner that the State Commission did not pass speaking order and
therefore it was no order in the eyes
of law. It is wrong. If we see the order enough reasons have
been given to sustain the order of the District Forum.
As noted above, the
challenge before the State Commission was
only the amount payable by the three Insurance companies which has been
recorded in the impugned order of the State Commission. If we refer to the grounds of revision
before us this observation of the State
Commission has not at all been challenged and goes unrebutted. We find
this petition has no merit.
Rather it is an abuse of the process of the whole
system and simply because Insurance Company has means to challenge each and
every order without regard to the circumstances of the case and its obligation to pay the amount under the
policy. It was neither necessary nor
proper for the Insurance Company to
take up the cause of the doctors to save its own liability which it was legally
bound to meet.
Accordingly, this
revision is dismissed.
REVISION
PETITION NO.2648/2002;
In this case the first
complaint, a minor,. on account of
negligence of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2,
had suffered amputation of his hand near joint of upper limb resulting his
becoming permanently disabled.
District Forum allowed the complaint which was filed by the minor as well as his parents and awarded
compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs against
opposite party No. 1 and 2 (respondent Nos.4 and 5 respectively
herein). Accordingly it was held that Insurance Company was liable
to indemnify opposite party
Nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with the contract of insurance contained in the
insurance policy which was filed in the proceedings. Cost of Rs.1,000/- was also
awarded to the complainants.
Strangely it was the
Insurance Company-petitioner herein,
who filed appeal against the order of the District Forum impleading both
the doctors as respondents. Appeal was
also filed by the complainants seeking
enhancement of compensation.
The appeals both of the Insurance Company and the complainants were dismissed. The order of the District Forum was affirmed
which has returned a clear finding of negligence against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
Not satisfied with the
order of the State Commission, the
Insurance Company has filed this petition.
We find that the Insurance
Company without any rhyme and reason is challenging the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State
Commission. It was neither proper nor desirable for the
Insurance Company to file this revision
petition. This revision petition is
therefore, dismissed.
Before concluding we
must express our deep anguish the way
these petitions have been filed by the Insurance Company. Such type of cases are not the fodder
for the legal department of the Insurance Company and that cannot go on spree in filing such type of
petitions. We have restrained ourselves from imposing heavy cost on the
petitioner. Henceforth, if such
petition is filed by any of the Insurance Companies we will certainly impose
heavy cost. Agony of a consumer must
end at
some stage. It is the duty of the Insurance Company to see that
frivolous cases are not filed so as to clog the wheels of justice. As noted above, it is neither expedient nor worthwhile to file such trivial
cases. It is nothing but
waste of time.
A copy of this order
shall be sent to the
Chairman-cum-Managing Directors of all the Insurance Companies.
J
(D.P. WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
J
(J.K. MEHRA )
MEMBER
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)
MEMBER
(B.K. TAIMNI)