Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Case nº First Appeal No. 801 Of 2015, (Against the Order dated 15/06/2015 in Complaint No. 08/2014 of the State Commission Rajasthan) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, October 15, 2015 (case 1. Amar Jain Hospital and Ors 2. . Shri Umrao Mal Choradia 3. Shri Padam Chand Dhadda 4. Dr. Arjun Jain Vs 1. Devkinandan Soni and Anr. 2. Smt. Suman Soni)

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Manu Mridul, Advocate
PresidentMr. J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Resolution DateOctober 15, 2015
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

J. M. Malik, Presiding Member (Oral)

  1. Counsel for the appellants is present. Arguments heard.

  2. There is a delay of 72 days in filing this appeal. The intention is to delay the case unnecessarily. The application for impleadment should have been moved at the earliest possible stage. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost which be paid to the complainant, Shri Devkinandan Soni. We are of the considered view that notice should not be issued to the complainant as it will entail further time.

  3. The OP has moved an application for impleadment of the insurance company. The State Commission denied his request and passed the following order:

    Whereas the issue of professional indemnity insurance policy obtained by Dr. Arun Jain is concerned, this issue is between the insurance company and Dr. Arun Jain. If in case the Dr. Arun Jain is found to be liable for professional negligence and if any of award is passed against him, then also he can get it indemnified by the insurance company. This agreement is between Dr. Arun Jain and the insurance company. Complainant could not be bound to make the insurance company as a party and then prove their claim against it also. The decision which has been referred to by the counsel for the applicant in the application, in that too the insurance company has only been treated as a proper party not the necessary party. According to our opinion...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT