The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. the State of Bihar and Shri Ram Kumar Chaubey S/O Late Ram Kumar Chubey - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/849550
SubjectCriminal
CourtPatna High Court
Decided OnMay-12-2009
Judge Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.
AppellantThe New India Assurance Company Ltd., ;The Chairman Cum Managing Director, New India Assurance Compa
RespondentThe State of Bihar and Shri Ram Kumar Chaubey S/O Late Ram Kumar Chubey
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
- ajay kumar tripathi, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned app for the state.2. this application under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure has been filed on behalf of senior functionary of the assurance company ltd. against the order taking cognizance dated 17.11.2006 under sections 403, 418 and 120b of the indian penal code in complaint case no. 2533 (c) of 2006.3. the allegation in the complaint is that the opposite party no. 2 had taken a hospital and domiciliary hospitalization benefit policy from the petitioners' company which covered the period 1.11.2005 to 31.10.2006. in this regard premium of rs. 2.824/- was deposited. while the policy was still valid, wife of opposite party no. 2 had undergone the surgery and medical hospitalization both at patna and delhi and ultimately she passed away on 21st january, 2006. when claim was lodged with the petitioners' company they have refused to reimburse the expenses incurred on the treatment on one ground or the other and hence the complaint came to be filed.4. learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that no ingredients of the offence for which cognizance have been taken is made out in the present case. not only this, the matter was of a case of settlement of the claim under the so called policy and every settlement has to be made in terms of the policy. the company being a public sector undertaking, they have to satisfy about the genuineness of the claim, since certain doubts had arisen as to how the patient was under treatment both at patna and delhi during the same period or time. there are communications on record to show that the details have been sought from opposite party no. 2 but he did not bother to respond. in the above background therefore the issue of claim could not be settled.5. it is also urged that the dispute falls within the realm of civil dispute and it could also be urged that if the complainant was of the opinion that there was deficiency of service, he could very well take action against the petitioners under the consumer protection act.6. learned counsel representing the opposite party no. 2 submits that opposite party got allured by the company and he was made to belief that all expenses and cost on the treatment will be duly reimbursed if the occasion for the same would arise but nothing of the kind has been done despite payment of premium.7. having heard the rival contentions of the parties this court is of the considered opinion that no case against the company and the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is made out, more so under section 403, 418 and 120b of the indian penal code. the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2 and the order taking cognizance is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. petitioners have made out a case for interference. the order taking cognizance dated 17.11.2006 in complaint case no. 2533 (c) of 2006 by the judicial magistrate, 1st class, patna stands quashed.8. this application is accordingly allowed.9. it is however made clear that if the complaint wants to pursue the matter before an appropriate forum other than the criminal court he has liberty to take recourse to the same if the law so provides.
Judgment:

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned APP for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of senior functionary of the Assurance Company Ltd. against the order taking cognizance dated 17.11.2006 under Sections 403, 418 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 2533 (c) of 2006.

3. The allegation in the complaint is that the opposite party No. 2 had taken a Hospital and Domiciliary Hospitalization Benefit Policy from the petitioners' company which covered the period 1.11.2005 to 31.10.2006. In this regard premium of Rs. 2.824/- was deposited. While the policy was still valid, wife of opposite party No. 2 had undergone the surgery and medical hospitalization both at Patna and Delhi and ultimately she passed away on 21st January, 2006. When claim was lodged with the petitioners' company they have refused to reimburse the expenses incurred on the treatment on one ground or the other and hence the complaint came to be filed.

4. Learned Counsel representing the petitioners submits that no ingredients of the offence for which cognizance have been taken is made out in the present case. Not only this, the matter was of a case of settlement of the claim under the so called policy and every settlement has to be made in terms of the policy. The company being a public sector undertaking, they have to satisfy about the genuineness of the claim, since certain doubts had arisen as to how the patient was under treatment both at Patna and Delhi during the same period or time. There are communications on record to show that the details have been sought from opposite party No. 2 but he did not bother to respond. In the above background therefore the issue of claim could not be settled.

5. It is also urged that the dispute falls within the realm of civil dispute and it could also be urged that if the complainant was of the opinion that there was deficiency of service, he could very well take action against the petitioners under the Consumer Protection Act.

6. Learned Counsel representing the opposite party No. 2 submits that opposite party got allured by the company and he was made to belief that all expenses and cost on the treatment will be duly reimbursed if the occasion for the same would arise but nothing of the kind has been done despite payment of premium.

7. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties this Court is of the considered opinion that no case against the Company and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is made out, more so under Section 403, 418 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint filed by opposite party No. 2 and the order taking cognizance is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Petitioners have made out a case for interference. The order taking cognizance dated 17.11.2006 in Complaint Case No. 2533 (c) of 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna stands quashed.

8. This application is accordingly allowed.

9. It is however made clear that if the complaint wants to pursue the matter before an appropriate forum other than the criminal court he has liberty to take recourse to the same if the law so provides.