State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Religare Health Insurance Company Ltd. vs Hatinder Gupta on 24 May, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UT CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. A/128/2018 ( Date of Filing : 22 May 2018 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/03/2018 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/444/2017 of District DF-II) 1. Religare Health Insurance Company Ltd. Chandigarh ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Hatinder Gupta Chandigarh ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jasbir Singh PRESIDENT DEV RAJ MEMBER PADMA PANDEY MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 24 May 2018 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. 128 of 2018 Date of Institution 22.05.2018 Date of Decision 24.05.2018 Religare Health Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.56-58, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160017 through Ankit Bhardwaj, Manager-legal, authorized signatory, 3rd floor, Vipul Tech Square, Tower C, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. ....Appellant Versus Hatinder Gupta, House No.698, Sector 10, Panchkula (Haryana) ......Respondent Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 22.03.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh in C.C.No.No. 444/2017.. Argued by: Mr.Sachin Ohri, Advocate for the appellant. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT Appellant/Opposite party has filed this appeal against order dated 22.03.2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(II), U.T. Chandigarh (for short the Forum only), allowing a consumer complaint filed by the respondent/complainant.
2. The appeal is barred by limitation of 14 days. To condone the delay, following explanation has been given ;
"That date of order is 22.03.2018. The copy of the order was prepared on 28.03.2018 and despatched by the registry of Ld. Distt. Forum on 03.04.2018 which was delivered at Chandigarh office on 04.04.2018. The copy of the said order was sent by the Chandigarh Office to Gurgaon office where legal team handles cases of North. Copy of the said order was received after 2-3 days at Gurgaon office. Later on 09.04.2018, Legal team discussed the matter with technical team. Then on 11.04.2018, technical tea recommended to challenge the order before higher Forum. On 16.04.2018, as per recommendation of the technical team, legal team discussed the matter with higher officers of the company. On 18.04.2018, senior officer decided to file an appeal in this matter before Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh. On 20.04.2018, the present counsel was engaged and documents were sent to him to file an appeal. On 24.04.2018, present counsel discussed the matter with the legal team for filing of an appeal. On 03.05.2018, present counsel sent the grounds of appeal for approval and signature. Later on, demand draft was prepared for filing of an appeal and signed grounds of appeal were sent to the counsel for filing of an appeal. Now, this appeal is being filed without any further delay.
3. We have perused the record and found that the reasons given in the application seeking condonation of delay are not satisfactory. A casual approach has been adopted in filing the appeal. As stated in the application, between 4-4-2018 to 24.4.2018 the matter remained only in discussion. It is not a very technical matter. To file appeal or not, decision should have been taken in a prompt manner. Delay in filing appeal, could have been avoided very conveniently by the appellant, had due diligence been shown by it. However, it was not done so. The Hon'ble Supreme court in Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors, V(2010) SLT 790-III, (2010) CLT 201 (SC), observed as under:-
"The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention."
In Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had refused to condone the delay of even 13 days.
4. Otherwise also, we are not inclined to interfere in the order, under challenge. It is not in dispute that the policy was cancelled in terms of guidelines issued by the Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority of India(IRDA) dated 9.9.2011. It is on record that insurance policy was issued on 3.9.2016 ; notice of cancellation was issued vide letter dated 6.12.2016 and cancellation was made effective whereof 10.1.2017. By taking mandatory nature of the guidelines issued, it was rightly said by the Forum that the insurance policy could not have been cancelled at that stage.
5. In view of above discussion, as no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 14 days, in filing the appeal, the application, thus, stands dismissed. Consequently, appeal also fails, and the same is dismissed.
6. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
7. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jasbir Singh] PRESIDENT [ DEV RAJ] MEMBER [ PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER