Niva Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. Formerly Max Bupa Health Ins Co Ltd vs Vinod Bhola

Court
Delhi High Court

$~105
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 27 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010368142026
+ W.P.(C) 11431/2026
NIVA BUPA HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD.
FORMERLY MAX BUPA HEALTH INS CO LTD
.....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga & Ms. Mouli
Sharma, Advs.
versus
VINOD BHOLA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Prashant Vaxish, Adv.
(through VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 73864/2026 (for early hearing) in W.P.(C) 11431/2026
1. The present application has been filed seeking early hearing of
the stay application.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final
hearing today.
4. The application stands disposed of.
5. The date already fixed, that is, 20.01.2027 stands cancelled.
W.P.(C) 11431/2026 & CM APPL. 52949/2026
6. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:19:51
W.P.(C) 11431/2026 Page 1 of 4

of India assailing order dated 02.07.2026 passed by the learned National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘ NCDRC ’) in F.A. No.
333/2026.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been
passed by a Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission ( ‘NCDRC ’) comprising only one member and is,
therefore, without jurisdiction, as the appeal was required to be heard
and decided by a Bench comprising two or more members.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also
conceded that the impugned order ought to have been passed by a
Bench comprising two or more members.
9. The impugned order was passed in a First Appeal preferred by
the petitioner under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The constitution and functioning of Benches of the National
Commission are governed by Section 20(1-A) of the said Act, which
reads as under:
“[(1-A)(i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National
Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof.
(ii) A Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more
members as the President may deem fit.
(iii) If the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the
points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if
there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall
state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference
to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or
refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of
the other members and such point or points shall be decided
according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have
heard the case, including those who first heard it.]”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:19:51
W.P.(C) 11431/2026 Page 2 of 4

10. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that Section
20(1-A)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 permits the President
to constitute a Bench comprising one or more members. However, sub-
clause (iii), which provides for the resolution of differences of opinion
amongst members of a Bench, contemplates a situation in which a
majority opinion may be required to decide the points of difference. The
latter provision, therefore, envisages a Bench comprising at least two
members for the purpose of determining any difference of opinion.
Reliance in this regard is placed upon the recent decision of the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in Ankita Developers v. Pramod Ghate : 2026
SCC OnLine Bom 10503 , where under similar circumstances it was
held as under:
“1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 20-6-2024
passed by the learned Presiding Member, National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Committee, New Delhi, in Revision Petition No.
2461/2019, whereby the revision petition preferred by the
respondent - original complainant against an order dated 30-7-2019
passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 184/2014, arising out
of an order dated 28-1-2014 passed by the District Commission in
Complaint No. 92/2008, came to be allowed by modifying the order
passed by the State Commission.
3. By the impugned order, the petitioner - respondent in the revision
petition - promoter has been directed to provide an identical
bungalow to the respondent - complainant in the same vicinity or in
a similar locality.
4. The principal ground of challenge is that a learned Single
Member of the National Commission could not have passed the
final order in Revision Petition No. 2461/2019.
5. In the backdrop of the nature of the challenge, and the order of
the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kamal
Travels Kokks International1, which has affirmed a judgment of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:19:51
W.P.(C) 11431/2026 Page 3 of 4

a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of
Kamal Travels Kokks International, through Prop., Pramod
Varyani v. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department2 that a Single
Member Bench, would constitute a coram non-judice, without
delving into the merits of the matter and with the consent of the
learned counsel for the respondent, the petition stands allowed and
the impugned order stands quashed and set aside.
6. Revision Petition No. 2461/2019 stands restored to the file of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, for
a fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The parties
shall appear before the National Commission on 17-8-2026.
7. The National Commission is requested to decide the Revision
Petition as expeditiously as possible.
8. It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the
matter and all contentions of all the parties are expressly kept open.
9. The petition stands disposed.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Thus, it is clear that a final adjudication of a dispute can only be
done by a Bench comprising of two or more members.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned final order, having been
passed by a single-member Bench, cannot be sustained.
13. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is
remanded to the NCDRC for fresh consideration in accordance with
law.
14. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026
“SS”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:19:51
W.P.(C) 11431/2026 Page 4 of 4