PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.       Complainant is present in person.  Arguments heard.  He admits that cause of action had arisen on 18.03.2009, immediately after the death of his wife.   He was  required  to file this case, within two years.

Five years have elapsed, no application for condonation of delay has been moved, therefore, the case is clearly barred by time.

2.       He further submits that he had filed a case before the District Forum in the year 2010. The certified copy of the judgment of the District Forum has been filed on record, which is dated 08.01.2010.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint because it observed:-

“In the light of the evidence placed before us, it is apparent that  policy stood lapsed as on 08.12.2008 at the time of death of the policy holder.  When the policy is lapsed, the nominee is not entitled to claim and hence we see no illegality, in the rejection of the death vide policy bearing No. 0029814608 by the opposite parties.”

2.       Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission.  The State Commission also dismissed the appeal.

3.       Thereafter, the Revision Petition was filed before this Commission.  This Commission was pleased to dismiss the Revision Petition vide order dated 20.09.2010.  The petitioner did not approach the Supreme Court.

4.       Record further shows that fresh complaint was filed, which was again dismissed by the District Forum on 15.10.2014.  Instead of going to the State Commission, the petitioner has preferred to file the Consumer Complaint before the National Commission and has claimed Rs.3,00,00,000/-.

5.       To our view, the case is barred by principle of resjudicata as well and complaint does not lie here.   Consequently, we dismiss the complaint.