ORDER (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner in RP No. 2109 of 2017, responding to the submission made at the bar by Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, counsel for respondent No. 3- ICICI Bank Ltd., for deleting it’s name from the array of parties, submits that the name of ICICI Bank Ltd./R-3 may be treated as deleted as no relief has been sought against them.No one appears on behalf of respondent No. 1 & 2 in RP No. 2109 of 2017. Revision Petition No. 2109 of 2017 has been filed with a delay of 203 days.All these Revision Petitions are filed by the same petitioner against
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (RP Nos. 3665, 3666, 3667 and 2109 of 2017), Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ( RP Nos. 3668 & 3669 of 2017), Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (RP Nos. 3670 & 3671 of 2017), Max Newyork Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (RP No. 3672 of 2017) and H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ( RP No. 3673 of 2017), with inordinate delays of 342 days, as computed by the registry of this Commission. -6- 3. IA No. 9889 of 2017 is an application for condonation of delay in filing RP No. 2109 of 2017. Similar IAs, these being, IA No. 19168 of 2017, IA No. 19170 of 2017, IA No. 19172 of 2017, IA No. 19174 of 2017, IA No. 19176 of 2017, IA No. 19178 of 2017, IA No. 19181 of 2017, IA No. 19182 of 2017 & IA No. 19184 of 2017, have also been filed in the other revision petitions mentioned in para 2 above. By way of explaining the delay, what has been indicated in this application- IA No. 9889 of 2017, is that after the State Commission’s order dated 15.9.2016, the petitioner met her Advocate for taking his legal opinion on further course of action.This legal opinion was given to her in October, 2017 and the advice was that it was a fit case to approach the National Commission. It is, further, submitted that the petitioner was under medical stress and that she had approached judicial Forums at all levels but got no relief, and that it was only in the last week of November, 2017 that she was able to recover from her recurring illness and only then was she able to focus on pending litigations which she had been unable to contest due to lack of funds.In this way, the petitioner thereafter somehow collected funds and has now approached the National Commission with a bunch of cases as described above.
-7- The relief claimed in RP No. 2109 of 2017 is Rs. 6.50 lakhs with 18% interest from the date of filing of claim application till the date of realization.Similar reliefs have been claimed in each of the RPs, the amount ranging from Rs. 5.50 lakhs to Rs. 17.50 lakhs. Having given careful consideration to the condonation of delay application and the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, I find the explanation given to explain the delay as not at all sufficient.Instead of explaining the delay in terms of well laid down law, which requires the day to day delay to be explained with good and sufficient cause, what is found in the application, are very general statements about consultation with Advocates, receipt of advice, medical illness, lack of funds, etc.The delay application is, therefore, declined. Similarly, in all the other RPs under consideration, the delay applications, which are similar, are also declined. Even on merit, it seems fairly clear that this bunch of RPs can be thought of asbeing vexatious, aiming at unjust enrichment, thereby making a mockery of theConsumer ProtectionAct which
-8- is to protect genuine consumers. The entire bunch of RPs are, accordingly, dismissed on account of inordinate delay and also as they lack prima-facie merit. A copy of this order be placed in all the files of these revision petitions.
|
