State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.M/S Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance ... vs Rajinder Kumar Son Of Shri Baldev Raj, ... on 23 February, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1043 of 2010 Date of Institution: 22.07.2010 Date of Decision: 23.02.2012 1. M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, (wrongly mentioned) Bajaj Allianz Ganpati Building, Ist Floor, Opp. Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager. 2. M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. (wrongly mentioned) Bajaj Allianz, B-37-38, Ist Floor, Cannaught Place, New Delhi through its M.D./Chair person. Appellants (Ops) Versus Rajinder Kumar son of Shri Baldev Raj, Resident of House No.134/26, Veena Nagar, Camp, Yamuna Nagar Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for appellants. Shri D.S. Adalakha, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 8.3.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby complaint bearing No.801 of 2007 filed by respondent-complainant seeking insurable benefits in respect of the Insurance Policy issued by the appellants-opposite parties, was accepted by granting following relief:-
we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.20681/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum after three months from the date of discharge from hospital PGI Chandigarh to till its realization and pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which penal action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act will be initiated.
There is a delay of 85 days in filing of the present appeal the condonation of which has been sought by the appellants by moving an application stating therein that after obtaining the necessary permission from the competent authority well in time the brief of this case was to be handed over to the counsel to prepare and file the appeal before State Commission. However, despite the draft for a sum of Rs.14,233/- having been prepared well on 20.04.2010 within the period of limitation but due to inadvertent mistake, the papers of this case were tagged with some miscellaneous papers in the office of the Company by an official of lower cader without knowing that in fact papers were of a court case. The aforesaid papers were traced out only on 17.07.2010 while searching some files in the office cub-board and the same were immediately handed over to the counsel for preparing the appeal to be filed before the State Commission. Thus, delay of 85 days in filing of the appeal occurred for which the appellants prayed that the delay be condoned.
Heard.
In our view the plea taken on behalf of the appellants-opposite parties is not acceptable because it is settled law that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity and the right which has accrued to the other side for not filing the appeal within the limitation period cannot be thrown away in a casual way unless and until any sufficient cause is not shown by the applicant-appellant. Reference is made to the observation made by the Honble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2430 of 2010, decided on 18.08.2010 titled as HUDA vs. Mr. Krishan Lal Khurana, as under:-
The justification given for delay of 246 days is that HUDA being a Govt. Department, the file had to pass through various Sections and thus, the objections could not be removed in time after filing of the appeal. Such explanation can hardly be considered as sufficient cause for delay of 246 day. In Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana, vs. Haryana Petro Chemical Ltd. Rewari, 1 (2010) CPJ 194 (NC), the matter was considered threadbare by a Bench of this Commission, of which I was one of the party. After referring to large number of authorities of the Apex Court it has been observed therein as under:-
Thus, from the above judgments of the Apex Court, it is clear that no short jacket formula can be evolved for dealing with the application for condonation of delay and every case depends upon facts and circumstances of its own. It is now well settled that expression sufficient cause must be liberally construed in order to advance cause of justice. it also must be remembered that after expiry of period of limitation, the opposite party acquires a valuable right and such valuable right cannot be set at naught unless sufficient cause is shown. It is also well settled that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other case, delay of a very along range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. In addition, certain amount of latitude is not impressible where Government is seeking condonation and a little play at the points within reasonable limits is necessary. It does not mean that the Government bodies enjoy long rope and can get away without giving sufficient explanation only on the ground that the delay is sought by Government bodies.
At this stage, we would like to point out that we have noted in many cases of condonation of delay filed by HUDA before the State Commission as also before this Commission that a routine explanation is always being put forward blaming the official delays in handling the matters relating to filing of appeals and revisions. Can such an approach continue indifferently and repeatedly and no attempt should be made to improve the working of the official machinery for all times to come? Can a body that repeatedly comes out with the same state explanation for condoning delay deserves exercise of discretion in its favour?
Keeping in view need to promptly file appeals, the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & Ors (supra) and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan (Supra) has observed that the Government at appropriate level should constitute legal calls and in the event of decision to file appeal, the officer responsible for filing appeal should take prompt action and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any.
The State Commission, therefore, very rightly dismissed appeals on the ground of delay of 246 days.
The instant case is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Honble National Commission in Krishan Lal Khuranas case (Supra). No special concession can be given to the appellants to condone the delay when no sufficient cause is explained. Hence, the application moved by the appellants for condonation of 85 days delay is dismissed.
Even on merit, there is no force in this appeal in view of the finding recorded in para 3 of the impugned order, the relevant part of which is reproduced herein below:-
.The complainant remained admitted in PGI Chandigarh for the period from 18.2.2007 to 20.2.2007 due to the disease suffered by him and he has to incur a sum of Rs.80,000/- on his treatment as alleged by him. The policy of the complainant firstly reinstated on 24.11.2006 and secondly reinstated on 27.7.2007 and accepted the premium from the complainant alongwith penalty as per clause of penalty indicated in the terms and conditions of the policy. Whenever the respondent accepted the premium of the policy it means that the policy remained enforce automatically since 24.2.2006 to 23.2.2007 and disease occurred during that period. The complainant suffered heart disease during that period and he spent the amount of Rs.20681/- which has been proved from Annexure C-8 to C-25. The contention of the respondent that the disease occurred within the period of six months from the date of reinstatement, the critical benefit can only be claimed if the illness is diagnosed at least six months after the date of commencement of risk or reinstatement of risk in case the life assured is diagnosed with critical illness after such said period of six months and the policy is enforce for the full sum assured. The company shall pay a sum equal to the critical illness benefit as mentioned in the policy Annexure R-1. We are of the confirmed view that the second premium has been accepted with the penalty and the policy becomes reinstated automatically. So meaning thereby the premium started since the date of commencing policy i.e. from 24.2.2006 to 23.2.2007. So the complainant is entitled to claim the benefit as per terms and condition of the policy. Hence the complainant is entitled for relief.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by District Forum. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, this appeal is dismissed on both the ground of limitation as well as on merit.
The statutory amount of Rs.14,233/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal and Rs.14,233/- deposited on 26.08.2010 in compliance of the order dated 29th July, 2010 be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 23.02.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member