The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a judgment dated October 9, 2025, has ruled that an insurance company that has issued a “professional indemnity medical establishment policy” to a hospital or doctor is neither a “necessary party” nor a “proper party” to a consumer complaint filed by a patient alleging medical negligence.
A division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan dismissed Writ Petition No. 18839 of 2025, filed by a doctor seeking to implead his insurer in an ongoing consumer case. The Court upheld the ‘dominus litis’ principle, affirming that the complainant (the patient) is the “master of the suit” and cannot be compelled to add a party against their wishes, especially when that party is not essential for the adjudication of the core dispute.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a consumer complaint (C.C.No.112 of 2023) filed by Mr. Chekuri Lakshmi Narayana before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur. The complaint alleged medical negligence and sought compensation from Dr. Mudunuri Ravi Kiran (the petitioner) and other representatives of Yashoda Group of Hospitals (respondents 4 and 5).
In response, Dr. Kiran filed an interlocutory application (M.A.No.487 of 2023) under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to implead The New India Assurance Company Limited as the 4th Opposite Party. The petitioner argued that the hospital was insured under a “professional indemnity medical establishment policy,” and therefore, the insurance company was a “proper and necessary party” to the complaint.
The complainant contested this application.
On March 7, 2024, the District Forum dismissed M.A.No.487 of 2023. The Forum held that the complainant had no “privity of contract” with the insurance company and was “neither consumer nor beneficiary” of the said policy. It further observed that if liability were fixed on the petitioner, he was “at liberty to seek relief from the insurance company” in separate proceedings.
The petitioner’s subsequent challenge, Revision Petition No. 26 of 2024, was also dismissed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada, by an order dated December 31, 2024. Aggrieved by these orders, Dr. Kiran filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Petitioner’s Submissions
Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced three main arguments:
- The insurance company is “atleast a proper party” to the proceedings.
- Impleading the insurer would “avoid the multiplicity of the litigation,” as the doctor would otherwise be forced to file a separate case against the insurance company for reimbursement.
- An analogy was drawn to cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the insurance company is “impleaded, as a necessary party or as a proper party.”
- Reliance was placed on orders from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), such as Dr. C.C. Choubal v. Pankaj Srivastava, where insurers were directed to be impleaded.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court formulated two primary points for determination: (A) Whether the insurance company is a necessary or proper party to the consumer complaint, and (B) Whether the District Forum’s order was sustainable in law.
1. On the ‘Dominus Litis’ Principle: The bench reiterated the settled legal principle that the plaintiff is ‘dominus litis’ (master of the suit). The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Sudhamayee Pattanik and Others V. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others (2022), which held that “nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as the defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs” unless the court finds it essential for proper adjudication.
2. Necessary Party vs. Proper Party: The judgment referred to Mumbai International Airport Private Limited V. Regency Convention Centre (2010) to distinguish between a “necessary party” (one “in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all”) and a “proper party” (one “whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate”).
Applying these tests, the High Court found the insurer to be neither:
- Not a Necessary Party: The court held that “the insurance company is not a person in whose absence, any effective order cannot be passed or compensation cannot be awarded against the hospital or the doctors.”
- Not a Proper Party: The court determined that the insurer’s presence “would not to be required” to adjudicate the “matters in dispute” before the District Forum, which are “the negligence or no negligence on the part of the doctors or the deficiency of service.” The bench stated, “Those can be adjudicated effectively even in the absence of the insurance company.”
The court also noted the petitioner’s admission that there is “no privity of contract between the insurance company and the complainant.”
3. Disagreement with NCDRC View: The High Court explicitly disagreed with the NCDRC orders cited by the petitioner. While acknowledging the NCDRC in Dr. C.C. Choubal found the insurer to be a “proper party,” the High Court stated, “We are of the view that, whether a party is a necessary or proper party is to be tested on the settled principles of law… We are not in agreement with the view taken in the cited judgments of the National Commission.”
4. Rejection of Motor Vehicles Act Analogy: The bench firmly rejected the petitioner’s comparison to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court conducted a detailed analysis of Chapter 11 of the M.V. Act, highlighting Section 146 (compulsory third-party insurance) and Section 149 (insurer’s statutory duty to satisfy judgments). Citing S.Iyyapan V. United India Insurance Company Limited (2013), the court emphasized that the M.V. Act creates a specific statutory framework making the insurer a necessary party.
The court concluded on this point: “Any such comparison cannot be made for its impleadment in the cases for compensation before the District Forum due to medical negligence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place before us any legal provision governing the field, like the statutory provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act.”
The Decision
Based on this analysis, the High Court concluded:
- On Point “A”: “We hold that the insurance company is neither a necessary nor proper party in C.C.No.112 of 2023 claiming compensation for medical negligence against the petitioner. The claimant/1st respondent is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead the insurance company.”
- On Point “B”: “We hold that the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the District Forum… does not suffer from any illegality.”
The bench consequently ruled, “The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.” No order as to costs was passed.
