National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... vs Kamla on 6 February, 2008
Equivalent citations: II(2008)CPJ84(NC)
ORDER
R.C. Jain, J. (Presiding Member)
1. There are applications for condonation of 131 days delay in filing the revision petitions. The revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 4.4.2007 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short the 'State Commission'). As per the averments made in the application the certified copy of the order passed by the State Commission was received by the Counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company on 20.4.2007 who in turn sent the same to Jaipur Office on same day along with his opinion which was received by the Divisional Office on 23.4.2007 who in turn sent the same to the Divisional Office, Ajmer. The Divisional Office called for the entire record from the office at Bikaner and the Bikaner office called for the record from the Branch Office, Nagaur and ultimately case was sent to the Zonal Office at Delhi on2.5.2007.Zonal Office at Delhi noticed that the order passed by the District Forum was not received by them so they sent a fax to Jaipur Office followed by a reminder on 23.7.2007 but still the orders of the District Forum could not be received. The Zonal Office again requested vide e-mail dated 24.8.2007 to Jaipur and Bikaner office to send copy of the order. The copy of the order was got misplaced in some other file and was traced only in fourth week of October, 2007 and sent to Delhi. Thereafter, exercise of the preparation of revision petition started and due to the intervening holidays of Diwali the Counsel could not prepare the petition and after the festival was over the petition was filed on 16.11.2007. The application is supported by affidavit of one V.K. Sharma, Asstt. Secretary (L & HPF), LIC of India.
2. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner the delay in filing the revision petition has occasioned due to the above stated extraordinary circumstances which was beyond the control and power of the officers of the Insurance Company. He submitted that there was no wilful or deliberate delay on the part of the officers and, therefore, prayed that this is a fit case where delay of 131 days should be condoned. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons put forth in the application for explaining the delay also the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company. It appears to us that undue delay in filing the revision petition has not been satisfactorily explained. The Life Insurance Corporation of India Company with all might, power and infrastructure at their command cannot be allowed to take such lame excuses about having not received the copy of the order passed by District Forum. The application itself would show that the Divisional Office of the petitioner at Delhi was sitting over the matter and was waking up only after month or so and that too only for issuing reminders to their respective Branch Office at Jaipur and Bikaner. It appears to us that the reminder to the said offices was by way of a mere ritual on the part of the petitioner unmindful of the fact that the matter related to the time-bound legal proceedings. The development of information and technology in recent years has come to the rescue of such like bodies and help them in curtailing the unusual postal delays which were the matter of past. Life Insurance Corporation of India is a 'State' within the mening of Article 12 of the Constitution and its functionaries are expected to function in a responsible, efficient and efficacious manner. The law does not accord any special privilege to Insurance Companies or such like other Corporations in the matter of limitation. The prescribed period of 90 days in filing revision excluding the period taken in obtaining certified copy of the impugned orders or the period during which the order was not received by the affected party cannot be said to be insufficient by any standard. In this view of the matter we find no sufficient reasons to condone the undue delay in filing the revision petitions. Application is accordingly dismissed as without merit.
3. Despite holding that revision petitions filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company are hopelessly barred by time, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the grounds set up in the revision petitions in order to assail the impugned order and the material brought on record. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that there was concealment of material facts by the respondent at the time of taking insurance policy. Consequently, Insurance Company was not justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent-complainant on the alleged ground.
4. In the result, revision petitions are dismissed as barred by limitation as also on merits.
5. No order as to costs. Petitioner is granted further four weeks time to comply with the order of State Commission.