TEJ SINGH PAUL Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint was filed in the year 1993 and was disposed of by this Commission vide its order dated 24.4.1997. Respondent/Ops felt aggrieved from the said order, preferred first Appeal No. 225/1997. It was a followed by the National Commission in the following terms: - "Both the parties agree that they should also be given opportunity to file additional documents in support of their respective contentions of the case, I think it is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the aforementioned circumstances, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission. The matter is remanded to the learned State Commission for hearing the parties afresh including the new documents, which the parties wish to file as well as the law point raised by the appellant before us with regard to condition No. 15 oHhe policy. Since this is an old matter, the State Commissioner is requested to dispose of the matter at the earliest, if possible, with a period of our months. Both the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.7.2006."

(2.) After its remand case was taken upon the date fixed by National Commission as was adjourned to 10.8.2006 on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties. On the adjourned date following order was passed: - "After remand of the case supplementary affidavits of Sh. Tej Singh complainant and also Dr. R.K. Gupta have been filed today which are taken on record. Both of them shall remain present for their cross -examination on 29.8.2006 on which date Mr. Sharma submitted that if any counter affidavit is to be filed, needful will be done by his client. It is clearly understood between the learned counsel for the parties that so far complainant and Dr. R.K. Gupta are concerned they shall be cross -examined on behalf of the respondent -Insurance Company on the next date. Office is directed to locate the files/copies of the learned Members and put them with this complaint on the next date of hearing."

(3.) Pursuant to this order complainant as well as Dr. R.K. Gupta both had filed supplementary affidavits. Both of them have been examined.