Consumer Forum Cannot Resort To Summary Adjudication Without Allowing Rebuttal To Claimant's Case: J&K High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court set aside an order passed by the Consumer Commission, citing that it was “bereft of any reasons” and rendered without affording an opportunity to the insurance company to produce evidence in rebuttal against the claimant's statement.
The matter involved an insurance claim relating to the death of an insured person, where the insurance company raised primary objections that there was concealment of a chronic heart condition by the claimant. The Consumer Commission, however, closed its right to present witnesses on this point.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar observed that "merely because the Commission is created for summary disposal of such disputes does not clothe it with the power to dispose of the complaint by summary adjudication, without affording reasonable opportunity to lead evidence or prove documents.”
The court said that while the Consumer Commission is empowered to conduct summary proceedings for speedy redressal, such summary disposal cannot come at the cost of natural justice.
The insurer alleged that their independent investigator had obtained an OPD ticket from 2010, suggesting that the deceased was already under treatment for Rheumatic Heart Disease prior to taking the policy.
The company also sought to examine the medical officer and investigator who verified the claim. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the Commission closed their right to present these witnesses, ultimately allowing the claim on the basis of the complainant's sole testimony.
The court observed that “These aspects were required to be evaluated by the Commission by way of evidence, but it has proceeded to allow the claim merely on the strength of sole statement of the respondent,” calling the Commission's handling of the matter “a disposal in haste.”
The court emphasized that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1987 (which governed the proceedings due to transitional provisions under the J&K Reorganization Act), the Commission holds powers akin to those of a civil court.
This includes examining witnesses, summoning evidence, and adjudicating factual disputes. The High court held that this quasi-judicial obligation had not been discharged in the case at hand.
Further, it was noted that the original claim dated back to 2011, and the record had to be reconstructed after being damaged in the 2014 floods. Nonetheless, the court stated that proper findings were necessary before any appellate scrutiny could be undertaken.
Holding that the findings of the Commission lacked application of mind and legal reasoning, the court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, allowing both sides reasonable time to lead additional evidence.
The court directed that “the matter is required to be remanded back to the Commission for fresh consideration after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellants to examine its surveyor/investigator and medical expert to disprove the claim"
The court clarified that if the complainant wishes to rebut any new evidence, they must also be provided a reasonable opportunity to do so.
APPEARANCE:
Mudasir-bin-Hassan Advocate for Petitioners
Ateeb Kanth, Advocate FOR Respondent.
Case-Title: Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd vs Abdul Aziz Khan, 2025