Telangana High Court
M/S. Cdr Healthcare Ltd. vs The Divisional Manager on 10 March, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
C.C.C.A.No.150 of 2003
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 25.11.2002, passed
in O.S.No.529 of 1994 by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present Appeal is filed.
2. Heard Ms. Annapurna, learned counsel representing
Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and Sri P. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for
respondents.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had
contended that the appellant is C.D.R. Hospital. The
appellant has launched health scheme namely "MEDISAVE"
Health Insurance Policy in association with respondent No.2-
United India Insurance Company Limited. Learned counsel
for the appellant further submitted that the appellant made
several claims to the respondents, but the Insurance
Company did not release the amounts and the same were
rejected by the Company during the period from 07.09.1990
::2::
to 28.03.1991. As per the said Insurance Policy, the claims
have to be made within one year from the date of rejection.
Since the respondent-Company has rejected the claims made
by the appellant, contrary to the terms of Insurance Policy,
the appellant has approached the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (National
Consumer Commission) by filing O.P.No.65 of 1991 under
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking for recovery of
money based on the rejection of claims and the National
Consumer Commission has dismissed the O.P vide order,
dated 18.05.1992, granting liberty to the appellant to file a
suit for recovery of the amount from the respondents.
4. Consequently, the appellant has filed O.S.No.529 of
1994 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad, seeking for recovery of an amount of
Rs.41,33,596/- together with subsequent interest @ 20% per
annum with quarterly rests from the date of suit till the date
of realisation, but the trial Court has dismissed the suit on
the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant
had further contended that since the appellant was pursuing
the remedies in the wrong forum, the trial Court ought to
::3::
have extended the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation
Act. The trial Court instead of dismissing the suit, ought to
have adjudicated the case on merits.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant had further
contended that National Consumer Commission has
dismissed the said O.P on 18.05.1992, and therefore, three
(3) years of limitation should commence from the date of
dismissal of O.P. by the National Consumer Commission. If
the limitation period is considered from 18.05.1992, the suit
filed by the appellant would be well within a period of
limitation. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the
Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 25.11.2002 passed
by the trial Court in O.S.No.529 of 1994 and remit the
matter back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication on
merits.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
had contended that the appellant has filed O.P.No.65 of
1991 before the National Consumer Commission, but has
not pursued the said case. When the matter was listed for
hearing, neither the appellant nor their representative
appeared before the Commission. In those circumstances,
::4::
the National Consumer Commission has rejected the said
O.P with the following observation:-
" We have gone through the records and we are of the view
that this is not a case which can be satisfactorily
adjudicated upon by this Commission having regard to the
highly voluminous nature of the evidence that will have to
be adduced for resolving the complicated questions that are
raised in the petition. We accordingly dismiss the petition
reserving liberty to the complainant to approach a Civil court
for appropriate reliefs if so advised."
7. Learned counsel for the respondents had contended
that the National Consumer Commission rejected the O.P
with an observation that the appellant can approach the
competent Civil Court for recovery of amounts, which would
mean that though the appellant has filed the said O.P, but
has not pursued the said case. Learned counsel for the
respondents had further contended that even after extending
the benefit of Limitation Act, the suit was filed by the
appellant beyond one year, three and half months and
eighteen days. As per clause 13 of the Insurance Policy, the
claim ought to be made within a period of one year from the
date of rejection. Admittedly, in the instant case, the claim of
the appellant was rejected by the respondents during the
period from 07.09.1990 to 28.03.1991. As per the Insurance
::5::
Policy, the claim made by the appellant is beyond the period
of Limitation.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents had further
contended that the O.P filed by the appellant before the
Commission is not for recovery of the amount, but for
discrepancies in service. Therefore, the case cannot be
equated to that of suit for recovery of the amounts. The
benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act would be available
only if the subject O.P. filed by the appellant before the
Commission was regarding discrepancies in service, but not
for recovery of the amount. Hence, the Commission has
rightly dismissed the O.P. Therefore, there are no merits in
the Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. This Court, having considered the submissions made
by both the parties, is of the view that the O.P. filed by the
appellant before the National Consumer Commission is in
respect of discrepancies in service and cannot be equated to
that of suit for recovery of amounts. Therefore, the
proceedings, which were pending before the Commission in
the form of O.P.No.65 of 1991 cannot be considered as a suit
for recovery. The appellant was pursued its remedies in the
::6::
wrong forum. The subject O.P was filed for a different
purpose, whereas the suit was filed for recovery of amount.
Hence the Commission has rightly dismissed the case filed
by the appellant on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by
the Tribunal.
10. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any,
shall stand closed.
_________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
_____________________________
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Date: 10.03.2025
prat
::7::
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 10.03.2025
prat
