Dismissed

Dr. Himanshu Agarwal v. Sampat Lal

Rajasthan HC9 Nov 2021CW/3934/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Permanent Lok Adalat's rejection of an application to implead an insurance company. The court held that the Legal Services Authority Act does not mandate insurance company participation in doctor-negligence cases, as the insurance contract is separate from the doctor's liability.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of application to implead insurance company affirmed; writ petition dismissed.

Dr. Himanshu Agarwal Vs Sampat Lal — Rajasthan HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3934/2021

¶3

Dr. Himanshu Agarwal S/o Shri Omprakash Agarwal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Agarwal Nursing Home, Panchayat Samiti Road, Raisinghnagar , Distt. Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sampat Lal S/o Shri Seetaram, B/c Brahmin , Resident Of Handa Colony, 22 P. S., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KL Vishnoi

¶9

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶10

Order

¶11

09/11/2021

¶12

The writ petition in hands is directed against the order dated 13.08.2019 so also the order dated 27.11.2020 whereby petitioner’s application seeking impleadment of the insurance company had been rejected.

¶13

The facts appertain for the present purposes are that the respondent – Sampat Lal filed a claim petition against the present petitioner – a doctor by profession under the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.

¶14

The respondent has alleged that due to negligence of the petitioner while conducting operation of his stomach, physical condition of respondent deteriorated.

¶15

A reply to the petition was filed by the present petitioner disputing the negligence.

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-3934/2021]

¶18

Without prejudice of petitioner’s contention that he was not negligent, an application came to be filed by him seeking impleadment of the insurance company.

¶19

The petitioner’s said application was rejected by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 13.08.2019. While rejecting petitioner’s application, the Permanent Lok Adalat observed that the petitioner may have a contract with the insurance company and the same is governed by the terms of insurance policy whereas the case filed by the claimant is based upon the allegations of negligence exhibited by the doctor while performing operation.

¶20

According to the Permanent Lok Adalat, the insurance company was not a necessary party. 8. The petitioner has yet again moved another application for the same effect and the same has been rejected by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide its order dated 27.11.2020, inter alia, observing that a subsequent application for the same cause was not maintainable.

¶21

Mr. KL Vishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's liability qua any operation or surgery etc was covered by the insurance policy and therefore, it was incumbent upon Permanent Lok Adalat to have allowed petitioner’s application for impleading insurance company.

¶22

He argued that if the case is decided against the petitioner in the absence of the insurance company, the company will not reimburse the amount of claim arising out of the award of Permanent Lok Adalat and hence, insurance company was a necessary party.

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CW-3934/2021]

¶25

Though, the present writ petition has been preferred after receiving the order dated 27.11.2020, whereby petitioner’s subsequent application for the same cause has been rejected on the principle of res judicata, the present writ petition is entertained against the first order dated 13.08.2019, whereby petitioner’s application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.

¶26

Having gone through the order dated 13.08.2019 and after considering submission made by Mr. Vishnoi, this Court is of the view that the Permanent Lok Adalat has committed no illegality or irregularity.

¶27

The provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act do not contain any provision like section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in which presence of insurance company is necessary. 14. That apart, coverage of risk emanating from negligence or otherwise of a doctor is not statutorily required and it is only a commercial expedience of a doctor or hospital to take such insurance policy.

¶28

Such being the position, a policy holder or insured cannot compel the Permanent Lok Adalat or the Court to implead the insurance company to be a respondent-party. 16. In any case, if a liability is fixed upon the petitioner, he will be free to lodge his corresponding claim against the insurance company and in case insurance company disputes such liability or denies reimbursement of the liability which is fastened on the petitioner pursuant to award of the Permanent Lok Adalat, he will obviously be free to take his legal recourse against such an action of the insurance company. But, the insurance company, at this juncture, cannot be dragged to defend the case of the petitioner,

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

[CW-3934/2021]

¶31

as agreement of insurance is an altogether separate contract, unconcerned and unconnected with petitioner’s liability qua its patient.

¶32

This Court, therefore, does not find any merit and substance in the present writ petition, for which, it is hereby dismissed. 18. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

¶33

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶34

7-Amar/-

Dr. Himanshu Agarwal v. Sampat Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Himanshu Agarwal v. Sampat Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hitesh Giri Vs Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur

Devi Lal @ Deva Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokmanya Tilak Stc College Vs State of Rajasthan

Legal Representatives of Sahab Ram Vs Ami Lal

Ramesh Sharma Vs the Union of India

Balam Singh Vs Raghunath Singh