Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 04-04-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) in CC/382/2015, whereby the complaint case has been dismissed on contest.

The complaint case was filed by the Appellant alleging mis-selling of the subject policy by the Respondent Insurance Company which, however, was vehemently denied by the latter. However, the complaint case since been dismissed by the Ld. District Forum, dissatisfied with such verdict, this Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is moved.

We have heard all sides in the matter and perused the documents on record.

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant contended that the disputed policy was issued in the year 2007.  At the time of signing the proposal form, the Appellant was given to understand by the Insurance agent that it would be a fixed deposit and accordingly, he paid Rs. 75,000/- in good faith as premium. Ld. Advocate denied that the Appellant received complete set of policy documents from the Respondent Insurance Company. Subsequently, on being informed that the Appellant would have to pay further premium in respect of the said policy, he got astonished.  Thereafter, he made several correspondences with the Insurance Company airing his grievance, but in vain.  Therefore, he filed the complaint case.

Admittedly, the disputed policy was issued in the year 2007; whereas, the complaint case was filed in the year 2015, i.e., after long 8 years.  Surprisingly, the Appellant did not file any delay condonation petition explaining therein the reason behind such belated filing of the case.

It is though claimed by the Ld. Advocate that since the Appellant did not receive the complete set of policy bond as yet, the cause of action is still continuing, this is totally a specious thinking on his part. If indeed the Appellant did not receive complete set of policy bond from the Insurance Company in time, he ought to take up the matter with the company forthwith and in case his endeavour did not yield positive result, after waiting for a reasonable period of time, he needed to take legal recourse against the Insurer. 

It is admitted by the Appellant in the petition of complaint that he received one letter dated 04-12-2007 from the Respondent Insurance Company.  On a reference to the said document, it transpired that it was in fact the first premium receipt issued by the Respondent Insurer, wherein payment frequency was clearly mentioned as annual.  Ld. Advocate for the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why his client did not take up the matter with the Respondents immediately on receipt of the first premium receipt from the company. 

Significantly, the Appellant admitted in his petition of complaint that he took up the matter with the Insurance Company after one year since the date of issuance of the policy when the concerned agent asked him to renew the policy. The conduct of the Appellant is highly questionable.

Be that as it may, it is clearly stated in the statute that complaint has to be filed within a period of two years from the date of cause of action and in case of delay, the same has to be duly explained which is not done here.  On this score itself, the complaint case was inadmissible.  By dismissing the complaint case, thus, we find that the Ld. District Forum committed no legal infirmity.  Accordingly, there seems no reasonable ground to interfere with such a justified order.  The Appeal stands dismissed as such. No costs.