Page 85 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3
P. 85

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017                    85



                         Evidence -  Summary proceedings -  Dr. or the witness from the Hospital  not
                       produced – Recording of previous history in prescription slip and the discharge
                       summary -   Contention  that State Commission has committed a grave error in
                       relying upon the prescription slip of Dr. Prahlad Garg and Discharge Summary of
                       City Hospital as those documents  have not been proved by the primary evidence
                       i.e. by examining Dr. Prahlad Garg or the witness from the City Hospital  -   We
                       do  not  find  merit  in  this  contention  for  the  reason  that  proceedings  before  the
                       consumer fora are summary proceedings in which strict technical rules of proce-
                       dure  and  evidence  are  not  applicable  -  Otherwise  also,  the  petitioner  has  not
                       shown anything on the record that he in his evidence denied correctness of pre-
                       scription slip and the discharge summary  -  It is also argued by learned counsel
                       for the petitioner that recording of previous history of Diabetes Mellitus does not
                       mean that aforesaid opinion was given by the petitioner or that he was aware of
                       his ailment -  We do not find merit in this contention -  Both doctor Prahlad Garg
                       and the concerned doctor of City Hospital have recorded about the previous his-
                       tory of Diabetes Mellitus of the patient -  This history obviously must have been
                       given by the petitioner himself or his friend / relative, who took him to the doctor
                       concerned  or  the  hospital  -   Therefore,  there  is  no  reason  to  suspect  that  con-
                       cerned doctors of their own have recorded the previous  history – Claim rightly
                       repudiated.

                         NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                         NEW DELHI

                         REVISION PETITION NO. 677 OF 2017

                         (Against the Order dated 08/12/2016 in Appeal No. 1100/2011 of the State Com-
                       mission Uttar Pradesh)
                          1. PANKAJ PARASHAR
                          S/O.  LT.  ASHWANI  KUMAR  PARASHAR,
                       R/O.  48/12,  LODHI  COLONY,  FIROZABAD
                       POLICE STATION, LINE PAR,
                          DISTRICT-FIROZABAD
                          UTTAR PRADESH                              ...........Petitioner(s)

                         Versus
                          1.  ICICI  PRUDENTIAL  LIFE  INSURANCE
                       CO. LTD.
                          THROUGH  BRANCH  MANAGER,BRANCH
                       OFFICE CHINGAMAL KA BAGH,
                          FIROZABAD
                          UTTAR PRADESH                              ...........Respondent(s)





                                                       INDEX
   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90