Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, July 15: High Court has observed that the Consumer Commission has in haste disposed off the complaint without giving opportunity of being heard to the insurance company and remanded the matter back to Commission for fresh consideration.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar allowed the appeal of MetLife India Insurance Company and remanded the matter back to the Commission for fresh consideration after affording reasonable opportunity to the Insurance Company to examine its surveyor and medical expert.
“Having regard to the background, the order of commission is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commission for fresh consideration of the issue involved in the matter”, DB concluded.
The court recorded that the Commission cannot summarily adjudicate complaints without allowing the parties to lead evidence. The court said that merely because the Commission is created for summary disposal of consumer disputes does not empower it to dispose off the complaints by summary adjudication, without affording reasonable opportunity to lead evidence or prove documents.
The appeal was filed against the order of J&K Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby direction was issued to the insurance company to indemnify the insurer-complaint by paying a sum of Rs. 3.50 lakh approximately.
“Though the Commission is a quasi-judicial authority which has all the powers of a civil court to enforce the attendance of witnesses, it was required to provide inexpensive and speedy resolution of disputes arising between the consumers and service providers”, the court said, adding “merely because the Commission is created for summary disposal of such disputes does not clothe it with the power to dispose off the complaint by summary adjudication, without affording reasonable opportunity to lead evidence or prove documents.”
“We are surprised to note that the findings returned by the Commission on the issues involved in the complaint are bereft of any reasons. It appears that the Commission has proceeded to allow the consumer complaint in a summary manner”, the Court said.
The Court noted that there were two-fold objections raised, a case of mistaken identity or misrepresentation and non-disclosure of a pre-existing disease by the insured at the time of entering into the insurance contract. However, the Commission resorted to disposal of the complaint of the insured in haste.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
