DEEP NURSING HOME Vs. KIRAN MINHAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole point urged in this appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No.1129 of 2002, Smt. Kiran Minhas V/s. Deep Nursing Home and Another, is that the District Forum went wrong in rejecting the application seeking impleadment of the concerned Insurance Company, which insured Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, proprietor Deep Nursing Home. The District Forum has allowed the complaint and fastened liability on the appellants directing them to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the respondent/complainant for negligence and deficiency in service committed by them and also for the mental and physical harassment being undergone by her. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was also awarded as compensation regarding the death of the newly born child. A sum of Rs.3,000/- was allowed as costs of litigation. The amounts were directed to be paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the said amount was to carry interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed in the case of Dr. C. C. Choubal V/s. Pankaj Srivastava, 2003 4 CPJ 111. The Hon'ble National Commission held that in a case of medical negligence filed against the doctor, who moved an application to implead Insurance Company as co-respondent, the presence of the Insurance Company, if not necessary but is certainly proper. In other words, it was held that the Insurance Company concerned may not be necessary party in a case of medical negligence filed against the doctor but it is certainly a proper party inasmuch as claim against the doctor would be examined, if there is any medical negligence found against him. It was further held that it would be more appropriate if Insurance Company is made a co-respondent. Subsequently, the orders against the doctor, if any, are passed, there would be no difficulty for the complainant to get the amount of compensation to the extent of amount of the policy from the Insurance Company.

(3.) In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Dr. C. C. Choubal V/s. Pankaj Srivastava , we hold that the Insurance Company, sought to be impleaded in this case, was a proper party and the same should have been ordered to be impleaded. Since the Insurance Company is to be impleaded in the complaint case and the complaint case is to be decided in the presence of the Insurance Company, the impugned judgment and order deserve to be set aside and the complaint case deserves to be remanded to the District Forum with the direction that it shall allow the concerned Insurance Company to be impleaded as co-respondent and issue notice to the Insurance Company for filing written reply/evidence, if any, in support of such a reply and shall further allow the complainant as well as the respondents i. e. , Deep Nursing Home and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, proprietor Deep Nursing Home to lead such evidence, which may relate to the defence taken by the Insurance Company in the written statement. It is made clear that the District Forum shall not re-open the entire case and shall not permit either the complainant or the respondents i. e. , Deep Nursing Home and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, proprietor Deep Nursing Home to lead any further/fresh evidence in the case. Thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed to decide the case expeditiously and preferably within one month from the date of receipt of the record of the case. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh on 22.11.2004. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.