The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has affirmed that consumer forums retain the discretion to admit supplementary evidence until the moment a judgment is signed, prioritizing substantive justice over rigid procedural compliance. This ruling reinforces the quasi-judicial nature of consumer tribunals and their mandate to ensure fair adjudication even when procedural lapses occur.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a health insurance claim under the Indian Bank Arogya Raksha Policy, Plan-C, issued by United India Insurance Company. The complainant, Uttam Basak, sought reimbursement for medical expenses incurred during hospitalization. The insurer denied the claim, citing alleged non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Kolkata, but failed to annex the original policy document at the time of filing.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 2017: Original complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- 2018: Final hearing date fixed on 17.05.2018; complainant sought multiple adjournments
- 2019: Complainant filed an application to produce the original policy document on 01.03.2019, later supplemented by affidavit on 07.09.2018
- 18.09.2019: DCDRC allowed the admission of the policy document, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 as cost
- 2022: Revisionists filed an application to expunge Medicare TPA Services from the case, which was granted
- 05.01.2023: State Commission upheld the expungement but reviewed the evidentiary ruling
Relief Sought
The petitioner-insurer sought to set aside the DCDRC’s order permitting the late submission of the insurance policy document, arguing that evidence could not be introduced after the trial had commenced. The complainant sought affirmation of the order to enable proper adjudication of his claim.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a consumer forum may permit the introduction of supplementary documents after the final hearing has been fixed, and whether such admission violates the principles of natural justice or procedural fairness under the Consumer Protection Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The insurer contended that the admission of the policy document after the final hearing date violated the doctrine of res judicata and the principle that evidence must be led before the conclusion of trial. Relying on general civil procedure norms, the petitioner argued that allowing documents at such a late stage prejudices the opposite party and undermines the finality of proceedings. The petitioner cited the principle of res judicata and the doctrine of functus officio to argue that once a hearing is concluded, no new evidence can be entertained.
For the Respondent/State
The complainant argued that the policy document was essential to establish the terms of coverage and the insurer’s liability. He submitted that the document was not deliberately withheld but was unavailable due to administrative delays by Indian Bank. He relied on Narinder Kumar v. Shri Sat Narayan Mandir through Trust to assert that consumer forums are not bound by the strict rules of the Civil Procedure Code and must prioritize justice over technicalities. He further cited the insurer’s own letter confirming issuance of the policy as corroborative evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission undertook a purposive interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing its remedial and humanitarian character. It held that consumer forums are not bound by the rigid procedural constraints of the Code of Civil Procedure and must exercise discretion to ensure that justice is not defeated by technicalities.
"The question to fill up lacunae of the case of the Complainant does not arise..."
The Court observed that the policy document was not merely supplementary but foundational to the claim. The insurer had issued the policy through Indian Bank, and the bank’s letters dated 31.01.2019 and 13.02.2019 confirmed the complainant’s coverage. The Commission distinguished functus officio - which applies only after a judgment is signed - from the stage of pending deliberation, where forums retain jurisdiction to admit evidence for completeness.
The Court relied on Narinder Kumar v. Shri Sat Narayan Mandir through Trust, wherein the Supreme Court held that additional evidence may be admitted until the court becomes functus officio, i.e., until the judgment is signed. The Commission further noted that the DCDRC had granted reciprocal rights to the insurer to file questionnaires and additional evidence in response, thereby preserving procedural fairness.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that late filing equates to abuse of process, holding that the complainant’s conduct was neither dilatory nor mala fide. The insurer had ample opportunity to cross-examine and respond, and the forum’s decision to admit the document was a reasonable exercise of its equitable jurisdiction.
The Verdict
The complainant prevailed. The State Commission upheld the DCDRC’s order permitting the admission of the insurance policy document, holding that consumer forums may admit supplementary evidence until the judgment is signed, provided it is essential for just adjudication and does not prejudice the opposite party. The revision petition was dismissed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Supplementary Evidence Is Not Automatically Barred
- Practitioners must now argue that late evidence is admissible if it goes to the root of the claim and is not introduced with mala fide intent
- Consumer forums are not bound by CPC timelines; the focus is on substantive justice, not procedural perfection
- Always request reciprocal rights to file counter-evidence when opposing late submissions
Documentary Corroboration Trumps Technical Objections
- Letters from third parties (e.g., banks, employers) confirming policy issuance can validate otherwise incomplete documentation
- Insurers cannot rely on technical non-production of policy documents if their own records confirm coverage
- Maintain internal audit trails of policy issuance to preempt such disputes
Procedural Fairness Requires Reciprocal Opportunity
- When admitting new evidence, forums must afford the opposing party a chance to respond with questionnaires or counter-evidence
- Failure to do so may render the order vulnerable to challenge
- Always file a formal request for opportunity to rebut when supplementary evidence is admitted
