National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs S.P. Jain & Anr. on 15 September, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1759 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 06/12/2016 in Appeal No. 499/2011 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE-I 18, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, 8TH FLOOR, KANCHENJUNGA BUILDING, NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. S.P. JAIN & ANR. C/O. ANIL ASSOCIATES J-37, SECTOR-18 GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH 2. FAMILY HEALTH PLAN LTD, 411-413, 4TH FLOOR, ASHOKA ESTATE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD NEW DELHI ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 15 Sep 2017 ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 6.12.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. FA-499/11.
2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the respondent no.1 and his wife had taken a medi-claim policy from opposite party w.e.f. 30.6.1999 for one year which was continuously renewed till 30.6.2005 and the next policy was issued on 22.7.2005 which was effective upto 21.7.2006. The wife of the respondent no.1 was admitted in Indraprastha Hospital for treatment of bronchial asthma on 20.11.2005 and was discharged on 25.11.2005. The respondent no.1 submitted the claim with bill of Rs.1,22,615/- to the O.P. but the same was repudiated on the ground that this was a case of pre-existing disease and the current policy was not a renewal policy rather it was a new policy as there was a gap of 23 days. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the O.P. on ground that the policy being a new policy, the pre-existing disease was not covered. However, the District Forum after considering the submissions of both the parties allowed the complaint and awarded the claim by ordering payment of the medical bills of Rs.1,22,615/- to the complainant with compensation of Rs.20,000/- including cost of litigation.
3. Against the above order of the District Forum, the petitioner herein preferred First Appeal No. FA-499/11 before the State Commission and the same has been dismissed in default vide its order dated 6.12.2016.
4. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused the record.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has a strong case on merits and the State Commission has not considered the appeal on merits and has dismissed the appeal in default. The counsel for the petitioner could not attend the proceedings before the State Commission due to an accident. It was prayed that the case may be remanded back to the State Commission for deciding the appeal on merits.
7. Learned counsel further mentioned that there is a delay of 83 days in filing the present revision petition and it was prayed that the delay may be condoned on the ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel explained that delay has occurred due to the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner before the State Commission met with an accident and therefore, the papers could not be received in time to engage the new counsel to file the revision petition.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the impugned order of the State Commission which reads as follows:-
" 06.12.2016 FA-499/11 Present : None for the Appellant Sh. Dharambir Singh Gupta,Counsel for the Respondent-1 None for the Respondent-2 The appellant did not appear on the last date and cost of Rs.2500/- was imposed on him. The said costs too has not been paid. Prior to that appellant did not appear even on 11.12.2015. It appears that appellant is not serious in pursuing the appeal. The appeal is pending since 2011. The same is dismissed in default.
FDR deposited by the appellant alongwith interest accrued thereupon be released in favour of Respondent-1.
File be consigned to Record Room." 9. The above order clearly states that none was present on behalf of the petitioner even on the previous two dates as well. Thus, the petitioner himself has been negligent in pursuing his appeal. Moreover, The present revision petition has also been filed with a huge delay of 83 days as per office report, whereas in the application for condonation of delay, no delay period has been mentioned.
10. In the application for condonation of delay, following reasons for delay have been mentioned.
"The impugned judgment had been delivered on 6.12.2016 by the Hon'ble State Commission, New Delhi. The State Commission dispatched the certified copy of the order in 16.12.2016 and the same was received by the Petitioner-Insurance company on 22.12.2016. After receiving the certified copy of the order, the Petitioner -Insurance company appointed Advocate in order to verify and to procure all the documents and pleadings filed before the State Commission as the counsel handling the case before the State Commission had not return the claim file and the petition filed before the State Commission.
After receiving the information the petitioner-Insurance company appointed Shri M.N. Singh, Advocate for filing the revision petition before this Hon'ble Commission. Since there was no documents with the Petitioner-insurance company, the counsel had to procure all the documents and pleadings filed before the State Commission. The counsel applied certified copies of the entire documents alongwith the pleadings and the same was received by the counsel on 08.03.2017. Immediately after receiving the said file the counsel have drafted the Revision Petition which was sent to the Petitioner Insurance company for approval, sanction and signatures. On sanction of the draft as prepared of the Revision Petition, the same was thereafter handed over to the counsel for the insurance company for taking further steps to file the revision petition."
11. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner has not constantly monitored his case and that is why it has taken time to procure copies of various documents and consequently delay of 83 days has occurred. Procedural delay cannot be treated as sufficient cause for delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 has held;
"24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under;
"29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.
30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Court further observed:
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay ".
12. It is also to be noted that special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. The Hon'ble State Commission in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has 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".
13. In R.B. RamlingamVs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Supreme Court observed;
"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."
14. On the basis of the above authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that reasons given in the application for condonation of delay cannot be accepted and negligence and carelessness are attributable to the petitioner. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. Based on the above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed being barred by limitation.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER