National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rachhpal Singh on 30 January, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 186 OF 2013 (From the order dated 01.10.2012 in Appeal No.260 of 2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh) HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Zonal Office N-22, 2nd Floor, Sector 18 NOIDA 201 301 (U.P.). Petitioner/OP Versus Rachhpal Singh S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh House No.1156/1, Sector-44B, Chandigarh Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 30th January, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 260 of 2012 HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rachhpal Singh by which while dismissing appeal, upheld order of District Forum allowing complaint.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent got Health Suraksha Policy from OP/petitioner for a period of one year commencing from 3.9.2009 to 2.9.2010. On 8.11.2009, complainant was admitted in Fortis Hospital for treatment. Bye-pass surgery was done on 10.11.2009 and he was discharged on 17.11.2009 and he incurred expenses of Rs.2,29,492/- on the treatment. Complainant lodged claim with OP which was repudiated by OP on the ground that complainant was suffering from pre-existing disease.
Complainant filed complaint alleging deficiency. OP contested complaint before the District Forum and submitted that as complainant was suffering from pre-existing disease, his operation and treatments were not covered under the policy. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint against which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the count of 75 days delay in filing appeal as well as on merits.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal on the ground of delay of 75 days in filing appeal and submitted that learned State Commission ought to have condoned delay in filing appeal. It was further submitted that learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal on merits also, hence, petition be admitted.
5. It is admitted fact that petitioner preferred appeal before the learned State Commission after 75 days. Learned State Commission has dealt in length application for condonation of delay and has rightly disallowed application for condonation of delay after citing many judgments of Honble Supreme Court and other High Courts.
Impugned order reveals that appeal was prepared and sent to petitioner on 2.5.2012, but appeal was filed on 30.7.2012 and apparently there was no plausible explanation regarding condonation of delay from 2.5.2012 to 30.7.2012. Honble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.
has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments. Learned State Commission also relied on 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) Ansul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority in which it was observed :
It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.
Thus, it becomes clear that unless there is reasonable explanation, delay cannot be condoned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 2009 (II) SCALE State of J&K & Ors. Vs. Mohmad Mazbool Sofi & Ors. in which the matter was remanded back by Honble Apex Court to the High Court for fresh consideration as High Court refused to condone delay of 97 days. This citation does not help to the petitioner in the light of latest judgments of Apex Court and particularly when no reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of delay of 75 days.
6. Learned State Commission also dismissed appeal on merits and I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned State Commission. Petitioner was duty bound to supply the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant immediately after receipt of premium and as petitioner failed to supply terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant immediately, claim could not have been repudiated by petitioner/OP on the basis of terms and conditions of policy. I do not find any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the matter and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.
7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) MEMBER k