New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Sonali Sareen & Anr

This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 09.12.2014 of the State Commission in appeal no. 487 of 2010 arising out of the Order dated 08.03.2010 of the District Commission in complaint no. 1696 of 2009.

We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the petitioner herein). No one appears for the complainants (the respondents herein). We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 08.03.2010 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 09.12.2014 of the State Commission, the application for condonation of delay and the petition.

This petition has been filed with self-admitted delay of 40 days. However, in the interest of justice, and considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, as also considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the insurance co. on this count, as well as to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay is condoned.

The matter relates to repudiation of an insurance mediclaim.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 08.03.2010 had allowed the complaint and directed the insurance co. to pay Rs. 70,000/- to the complainant along with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 09.12.2014 had dismissed the appeal as infructuous. The operative portion of the said Order is reproduced below:

Undoubtedly, the purchase of CPAP machine falls under the permanent exclusion clause 4.4.15 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, a valid ground to repudiate the insurance claim. Nevertheless, there are certain peculiar facts which are to be taken into consideration. Admittedly, the decree passed by the Ld. District Forum in its impugned Order dt. 08.03.2010 was satisfied by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. / Appellant before filing of this appeal. Therefore, the cause of action for filing the present appeal did not survive, and the appeal technically becomes infructuous. Therefore, in our considred view, this wouble be in the larger interest of justice that the position is not reversed. It is famous dictum in law that justice should not only be done, but it should be shown to have been done. Even otherwise demonstrative justice would require that the parties abide by the status quo. Moreover there is no evidence on record to prove that decree was satisfied under duress.

Before closing the discussion, in principle, we agree with the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that appeal was maintainable even after satisfaction of the decree but as discussed above, it would not only be better but just and proper that the position is not reversed and the status-quo is maintained. Therefore, the appeal is taken to be infructuous. With this observation we hold that appeal has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed.

Apparently the State Commission found that there was a valid ground to repudiate the mediclaim. However, it took note of the fact that the decree passed by the District Commission had been satisfied by the insurance co. before filing its appeal. It deemed it apt “in the larger interest of justice” that the position be not be reversed, moreso when there was no evidence to show that the decree had been satisfied under duress. It agreed in principle with the learned counsel for the insurance co. that appeal was maintainable even after satisfaction of the decree but deemed it “just and proper” that the position not be reversed. It accordingly took the appeal to be infructuous.

We note that the total amount involved i.e. 70,000 + 50,000 + 10,000 = Rs.1,30,000 is comparatively not very high, the cause of action arose way back in 2007 i.e. about 15 years back, and the Order of the District Commission was satisfied without duress prior to the appeal being filed before the State Commission. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the State Commission deemed it just and appropriate to let the matter rest.

While we may clearly observe that appeal is (ordinarily) maintainable before the State Commission even after the Order made by the District Commission has been complied with, but in the conspicuous facts and circumstances of the present case we do not deem it apt or conscionable to interfere with the State Commission’s view that the status quo need not be reversed. We however deem it appropriate and necessary to explicitly add that the decision in this case shall not be treated as a precedent.

So disposed.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.