Summary
The Court held that a consumer complainant could not be compelled to amend an insurance complaint after the insurer belatedly repudiated the claim. The complainant could proceed unchanged, seek amendment or withdraw with liberty to file afresh. Compulsory amendment, coupled with a new written-statement opportunity, prejudiced its ability to raise the statutory time-bar objection. Whether a defence to the existing complaint remained permissible and the legal effect of repudiation were expressly left open. Amendment or a fresh complaint would permit a timely response in accordance with law.
Issues
- Whether the Commission could compel amendment following the insurer’s repudiation.
- What effect setting aside that direction had on the insurer’s opportunity to file a written statement.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(2), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The mandatory response period and the prospective effect of Hilli were noted, but the insurer’s entitlement to respond to the existing complaint was expressly left undecided. (¶¶ 9, 12-14)
Held
- The party instituting proceedings controls whether to seek amendment or pursue the pleading as filed. The Commission could not force the complainant to amend merely because the insurer subsequently repudiated its claim. (¶ 9-12)
- The complainant retained three options: pursue the existing complaint, amend it to challenge repudiation, or withdraw with liberty to institute a fresh challenge. Whether the existing payment relief had become infructuous was for the Commission to decide, not determined in these appeals. (¶¶ 9-11, 13)
- The compulsory amendment and consequent defence opportunity prejudiced the complainant by depriving it of the ability to argue that the written statement was time-barred. The Court preserved that plea without deciding whether the insurer could actually file a defence to the unamended complaint. (¶ 12-13)
- If the complainant chose amendment, the insurer could respond within the stipulated period; if it filed a fresh complaint, a written statement could be filed in accordance with law. All contentions about the effect of repudiation remained open. (¶ 13-14)
Result
Appeals disposed of; Commission’s order set aside insofar as it decided the insurer’s IA 3463/2020 by compelling amendment and allowing a consequential written statement. Complainant’s three procedural options and parties’ reserved contentions preserved.