Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in spite of his best efforts he has not been able to get the documents filed by the respondents before the State Commission from the local counsel. Therefore, he is unable to file these documents. He further states that in view of this, record be summoned from the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. However, he argued the matter at admission hearing.

2.     Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the District Forum has allowed the complaint, approving the insurance claim of the complainant for Rs.2.5 lakh. However, in the appeal certain new papers were filed by the opposite party showing that the Deceased Life Assured (DLA) was suffering from diabetes which he did not disclose at the time of filing of the proposal form. The State Commission has relied upon these documents and has allowed the appeal of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint.

3.     Hence, the present revision petition. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that diabetes is a life style disease and is very common in India. Therefore, even if the DLA had supressed the information that the deceased was suffering from diabetes, this cannot totally disentitle the complainant for the insurance claim.

4.     Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that there is a delay of 1353 days in filing the present revision petition. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is an illiterate lady and she does not understand the intricacies of law. After receiving the order of the State Commission and after getting it interpreted, she realised that the same was required to be challenged. Then to contact a counsel at Delhi also took time as she did not have any contact in Delhi. All these factors have contributed to the delay of 1353 days. In the circumstances, it was requested to condone the delay in the interest of justice.

5.     I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and perused the records. First of all, the learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that he could not file the relevant documents which were filed by the opposite party before the State Commission and the complaint can be dismissed on this ground alone, because without those documents on which the assertion of the opposite party has been accepted by the State Commission, it would not be possible to correlate any arguments of the petitioner controverting these documents, even though no such arguments have been led.

6.     This revision petition has been filed with an inordinate delay of 1353 days and the delay has not been properly explained in the application for condonation of delay.  Moreover sufficient cause has not been shown to condone this inordinate delay of 1353 days. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, has 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.”

7.     The above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is equally applicable in the present case. The petitioner has not acted with reasonable diligence in pursuing her petition. Clearly, negligence and deliberate inaction is imputable to the petitioner in filing the present revision petition.

8.     The grounds given in the application of condonation of delay are not convincing. Ignorance of law can be no sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition no. 252 of 2018 is also dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as for non-prosecution.