Tripura

StateCommission

A/52/2017

Sri. Pallab Barman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. S. Saha

07 Dec 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.52.2017

 

 

1. Sri Pallab Barman,

          S/o Late Monoranjan Barman,

          P.S. West Agartala, District – West Tripura.

… … … … Appellant/Complainant

 

Vs.

 

 

1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited,

          One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1,

          15^th & 16^th Floor,

          Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg,

          Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

          Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited,

          Agartala Branch, 47 H.G.B. Road,

          Singhapara, Opposite Sarkar Nursing Home,

 

 

3. Smt. Jaya Deb,

          D/o Srinibash Deb,

          North Joynagar, Aurobinda Lane,

 

… … … … Respondent/Opposite Parties.

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellant:                                            Appellant in person.

For the Respondents:                                       None appears.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:    07.12.2017.

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, Sri Pallab Barman (hereinafter referred to as complainant/petitioner) against the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the learned District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in Case No. C.C. 58 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum rejected the prayer for condonation of delay of 4 years 5 months 25 days and in consequent thereto, dismissed the complaint petition as barred by limitation.

2. Heard Mr. Pallab Barman, appellant-complainant appearing in person. None appears on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1 and 2/Insurance Company) though one written argument is submitted by the opposite party-Insurance Company. None appears for the respondent no.3.
3. Facts need to be discussed are as follows:-

On 28.10.2010, complainant purchased one Birla Sun Life Insurance Policy, namely, Bachat (Endowment) Plan from the opposite party no.1 and 2, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited through the respondent no.3, Smt. Jaya Deb, the agent of the Insurance Company as she was previously known to the complainant. The maturity of the Policy is 31.10.2030 and the last premium of the policy is due on 31.10.2029 for which he paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash to the respondent no.3. It is also stated that the forms were not filled-up in presence of the complainant-petitioner, but he had received the money receipt issued by the opposite party no.2, the Branch Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, Agartala Branch. After about one year or more from the date of purchase of the policy, in one morning respondent no.3 came to his house and requested him to pay the renewal premium of his policy. Then the complainant-petitioner informed the respondent no.3 that till that date he had not received the policy document and accordingly, refused to pay any further premium until the policy document is received from the respondent-opposite party no.1. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 left the house of the complainant with assurance that she would inform after enquiry about the reason of delay in giving the policy document. Since thereafter, she did never meet with the complainant or informed anything about his Policy. Thereafter, he went to the office of the respondent no.2 on 5^th October, 2015 who informed him that the policy document was received by the complainant long back which the complainant vehemently opposed. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint petition before the learned District Forum along with an application under Section 24 A (2) of the Consumer Protection Act for condoning the delay of 4 years 5 months and 25 days in filing the complaint petition.  

4. The learned District Forum on 23.08.2017 passed the following orders:-

“23.08.17 - Ld. Advocate for petitioner & O.P. appeared. We have already heard both side on prayer for condonation of delay of 4 years 5 months 25 days. Cause of delay is written old age suffering from different ailment & staying in the house of daughter at Bangalore. Period of ailment not mentioned. Some photo copy of prescription & report of 2013-14, 2016, 2017 produced. With illness he filed the case after four years & five months. Cause of action arose on October 2011 when premium was scheduled to be paid., policy document not received. So by October 2013 within two years he could file the complaint. What illness prevented him to do so not described in the petition. Ld. Advocate for petitioner reffered the decision of Honble Apex court in civil appeal No.3883 of 2007. Ld. Advocate for O.P placed his reliance decision of National consumers disputes redressal Forum in Rev petition No.35932014. We have gone through decision. Delay may be condoned if cause of delay is just & it is properly explained. Petitioner has not given dates from which to which date he suffered illness. Type of illness & period of stay at Bangalore also not mentioned. With illness if he can move to Bangalore he could also come to Forum. With same illness if he can file complaint in 2017 why it is not filed in 2013 within limitation period. All these questions not answered or explained. Therefore this delay of 4 years & 5 months is not for any just cause. Sufficient explanation for delay not given.  Ignorence of law is no excuse. As such prayer for condonation of delay is rejected. The case is barred by limitation & dismissed.”

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the learned District Forum, the complainant-petitioner preferred the instant appeal.

5.  Mr. Barman, the complainant appearing in person and submits that he could not file the complaint petition within time due to his ailment and he was away from Tripura to the place of his daughter at Bangalore and after returning from Bangalore on 15.02.2017 he went to the office of the respondent-opposite party no.2 and submitted an application requesting him to inform the address of the respondent no.3. He has further submitted that he was in the hospital from 22.12.2016 to 23.12.2016 and 19.02.2017 to 24.02.2017 for which he could not file the complaint petition in time. He has finally contended that the learned District Forum committed error in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay and thus dismissing the complaint petition.  
6. The opposite parties filed their written objection against the prayer for condonation of delay before the learned District Forum. The respondent no.3 in her objection specifically denied the contention of the complainant that on 28.10.2010 morning at 08.00 am, the respondent no.3 came to the residence of the complainant and requested the complainant to purchase one Birla Sun Life Insurance Policy, rather according to her, the complainant himself approached the opposite party no.1 and 2 for purchase of policy and the respondent no.3 was only given the task to complete the formalities/procedure for purchase of the policy by the complainant. In their objection, the opposite parties also stated that the petitioner failed to explain the cause of delay in filing the complaint petition. It is also stated by the opposite party-Insurance Company that the complainant in his condonation petition nowhere mentioned as to when after one year he went to the office of the respondent-opposite party no.2 and such an undated averments without mentioning the place and time and any cogent ground creates a reasonable doubt that the complainant is not in a position to explain the delay occurred in that period.
7. The opposite party-Insurance Company also filed written argument before this Commission wherein the Insurance Company referred to Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating that the policy document of the complainant was duly sent in the given address of the appellant-complainant on 09.11.2010 vide Article No.44149547072 through Blue Dart Courier Service. In the written argument it is also stated that the appellant-complainant in his condonation petition has not made any statement regarding the name of disease from which the complainant suffered or period of treatment, name of hospital and the period during which the complainant stayed at Bangalore for the purpose of treatment.
8. We have gone through the reasons for delay as explained in the condonation petition as well as the objection and the order impugned in the instant appeal. We have also considered the submission of Mr. Barman that he was admitted in the hospital from 22.12.2016 to 23.12.2016 i.e. two days and 19.02.2017 to 24.02.2017. From the condonaiton petition filed by the appellant-complainant it appears that the complainant except stating that he is an old man suffering from different ailments and since he has got only one daughter and no son, he has to go and stay off and on in the house of his only daughter at Bangalore, Karnataka for the purpose of his treatment as well as on being requested by his daughter, but no date is mentioned as to when he went to Bangalore and whether these 4 years 5 months and 25 days, the whole period he was there or for some specific period he was at Bangalore. Though he has submitted some prescriptions before the learned District Forum in support of his ailment, but it appears that at no point of time he was admitted in the hospital except the period from 22.12.2016 to 23.12.2016 (Date of discharge) and 19.02.2017 to 24.02.2017 (Date of discharge) at Agartala in Tripura Medical College & Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital and the discharge certificate issued by the aforesaid hospital authority was first time placed before this Commission and the same was not also submitted before the learned District Forum. In Cicily Kallarackal Vs Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

“4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute(s).

5. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.

6. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay”.

In Santra Devi Vs. Sahara India Pariwar and Another reported in (2014) 4 CPJ 700 the petition of the complainant-petitioner for condoning delay of 542 days was rejected for not properly explaining the period of treatment. The period of treatment must be explained by showing treatment period in hospital, period for medication, and any other advice as given by doctors regarding daily life style.                  

9. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the learned District Forum rightly rejected the prayer for condonation of delay as the complainant failed to explain the reasons for delay in filing the complaint petition. As per Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint has to be filed within a period of 2 years from the date of cause of action and the Hon’ble National Commission, State Commission and the District Forum has the power to condone the delay in filing the complaint petition subject to the reasons for delay have been properly explained and the same is satisfactory. In the instant case, after going through the condonation petition and the supported prescriptions filed by the complainant, we are not satisfied regarding the reasons given for delay in filing the complaint petition.

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.