RAMNATH MARETHIA REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. SHASHIN H BHAVSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three petitioners herein have preferred this psetition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing a private complaint filed by the respondent, herein, against them before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2 at Ahmedabad City which was registered against the petitioners as criminal case No.1173/2001 for an offence punishable under sections 406, 420 and 114 of IPC. The facts of the case of respondent no.1 as complainant before the said Court may be briefly stated as follows: The said complainant, respondent no.1 herein, has alleged that petitioners no.1 and 2, the original accused in the said criminal case, are the responsible officers of United India Insurance Company Ltd., whereas, petitioner no. 3 is a doctor who conducted inquiry into the claims of the complaint. It is also alleged that one Shri Pritamlal Shah used to meet the original complainant very often in the court as Agent of the said Insurance Company. That the said Pritamlal Shah had given some details about Mediclaim policy of the said Insurance Company to the complainant and, therefore, the complainant had agreed to take mediclaim policy and accordingly the complainant had paid premium of different amounts and had taken different policies for himself, for his wife and for his two children for the year 2000 A.D. That even for the next year i.e. 2001 similar mediclaim insurance policies were obtained on payment of due amount of premium and the policy numbers have been given in the complaint at page 29.

(2.) . The complainant has thereafter alleged that on 18.9.2001, the wife of the complainant, Sumaben was admitted to Anand Hospital, opposite Cancer Hospital, Asarwa. That sonography test was undertaken by Dr.Jagdish Patel and it was noticed that Sumaben was suffering from Appendicitis. That therefore, blood test were undertaken and medicines were also given to Sumaben and thereafter, she was operated upon. That she had to remain as indoor patient in the said hospital upto 24.9.2001. That after her discharge from the said hospital, a bill of Rs.17,549-49 was given by the said hospital to the petitioner for the said treatment, operation, medicine etc. That the complainant submitted all the bills to the said Insurance Company.

(3.) . That thereafter the panel doctor of the said Insurance Company, Dr.Bimal Goswami, petitioner no.3 herein, who has been shown as accused no.4 in the original complaint, had come for enquiry of the said mediclaim of Sumaben. That Sumaben was asked to write on a blank paper as per the say of the said Doctor and accordingly it was written in the said blank paper by Sumaben that she had pain in abdomen since one and half years and for the said purpose. That the complainant objected to that statement and sonography report dated 27.1.2000 was also shown. That it did not show existence of appendicitis or any ailment. That despite the said position, the said Doctor said that it was merely a formality and had gone away. That thereafter, the said Doctor had approached the family doctor of the complainant Dr. Viresh Patel and obtained a wrong certificate from the said Doctor on 24.10.2001. That thereafter the complainant came to know that the said Insurance Company had rejected the mediclaim of the complainant stating that Sumaben was previously suffering from the said decease and therefore, the mediclaim could not be sanctioned. The complainant has alleged that everything was done illegally and with an intention to see that the Insurance Company may not be required to pay the amount of mediclaim to the complainant and, therefore, the aforesaid petitioners have committed the aforesaid offence of criminal misappropriation and cheating against Sumaben and the complainant. On the aforesaid set of facts, the aforesaid complaint was filed on 27.11.2000 by the complainant and the learned Magistrate had passed an order for issuance of summons for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 read with section 114 of IPC against the petitioners and original accused No.1. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioners-original accused persons have preferred this application before this Court under section 482 of the said Code. It has been mainly contended here that even a bare reading of the averments made in the complaint, it is clear that no offence whatsoever has been made out against the present petitioners. That there was no case of cheating since there was no inducement and that the complainant has not been deceived by the present peititoners and thus no offence has been made out. The learned Magistrate could not have issued summons against the present petitioners. That therefore, the said order of the learned Magistrate is illegal. The petitioners have, therefore, preferred this petition for quashing the said complaint.