LEGAL STROKES

Covid Patient gets speedy justice against Insurance Company. Complainant's Counsel Proved that Insurance Company was dodging Insurance Claim with Malafide intentions. Hon'ble Commission's order reflects justice done to the sufferers.
Hon'ble Commission's Findings:

LOCUS STANDI OF OBJECTING NON-EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT/WITNESS RESTS WITH THE COMPLAINANT AND DOES NOT VITATE THE TRIAL

Omission to examine the complainant on oath was only an irregularity not vitiating the trial. The objection regarding non-examination of the complainant was taken on behalf of the accused. A similar view was also taken in the subsequent decision of this Court reported in AIR 1958 Orissa 11. But that again was a case where the objection was taken not by the complainant, but by the accused. The correct position therefore appears to be that the omission to examine the complainant on oath under Section 200, Cr. P. C. is an irregularity, and if by reason thereof the complainant is prejudiced, he is entitled to an order that the subsequent proceedings are invalid. So far as the present case is concerned, prejudice in fact had been caused to the complainant because he had been deprived of an opportunity to explain his case to the Magistrate which he could have got had the Magistrate examined him on oath. Bharat Kishore Lal Singh v. Judhistir Modak, AIR 1929 Pat 473; Api Samal v. Bisi Mallik, AIR 1953 Orissa 83 Mahavir Prasad Agarwalla v. State, AIR 1958 Orissa 11.
It is not obligatory on the magistrate to examine the witness before issuing the process if the court is satisfied with the sole statement of the Complainant. The most important point on the filing of the complaint is whether the court on the examination of the Complainant is satisfied about case being made out prima facie against the accused person. Venkatesh Nilappa Talwar v. Laxmanavva, 1988 (1) Crimes 801.
Statutory language per se requires the magistrate’s opinion and a sufficient ground for proceeding.
Where a Magistrate chooses to take cognizance, he must comply with the requirements of section 200 and record the evidence of the complainant or his witnesses. Tula Ram & Ors vs Kishore Singh 1978 SCR (1) 615
Before issuing process to the accused, examining the complainant or his witnesses that were present, if any, is required otherwise the subsequent proceedings as examining the complainant and his witness and other assessing their evidence discharging the accused all become illegal. Davud Bhai Hasan Alli vs Abbas Bhai Abdul Karim & Anr. 1972 CriLJ 970
Non-examination of two witnesses cited in the protest petition cum-complaint did not preclude the Chief Judicial Magistrate from taking cognizance against respondent Nos.1 to 4 because he felt satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against them. Rosy v. State of Kerala (2000) 2 SCC 230. Examination of all the witnesses cited in the complaint or whose names are disclosed by the complainant in furtherance of the direction given by the Magistrate in terms of proviso to Section 202(2) is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance and issue of process against the persons named as accused in the complaint only those witnesses are required to be examined whom the complainant considers material to make out a prima facie case for issue of process. The choice being of the complainant, he may choose not to examine other witnesses. Consequence of such non-examination is to be considered at the trial and not at the stage of issuing process when the Magistrate is not required to enter into detailed discussions on the merits or demerits of the case, that is to say whether or not the allegations contained in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. He is only to see whether there exists sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. With a view to clarify legal position on the subject, we deem it proper to observe that even though in terms of the proviso to Section 202(2), the Magistrate is required to direct the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath, failure or inability of the complainant or omission on his part to examine one or some of the witnesses cited in the complaint or whose names are furnished in compliance of the direction issued by the Magistrate, will not preclude the latter from taking cognizance and issuing process or passing committal order if he is satisfied that there exists sufficient ground for doing so. Such an order passed by the Magistrate cannot be nullified only on the ground of non-compliance of proviso to Section 202(2). Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary and others CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1158 OF 2010

Reader's discretion advised.