Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum.

            Petitioner’s husband took insurance policy in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent insurance company during his lifetime.  On 23.12.2003, due to sudden accident, he got injured and was taken to the rest room of the office.  In the morning, as he did not wake up, his colleagues took him to the hospital, where the doctor declared him ‘brought dead’.  Being the nominee, petitioner filed insurance claim, which was repudiated, which led to the filing of the complaint.  District Forum dismissed the complaint. 

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission with a delay of nearly 6 months.  Order was passed by the District Forum on 30.7.2004 and the appeal was filed on 15.2.2005.  The reason given for condonation of delay was that the petitioner was not keeping good health.  State Commission did not accept the cause shown for condonation of delay and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause, as she did not place the medical certificate stating the illness from which she was suffering and the during, if any, during which she was advised rest by the treating doctor.  In the absence of the medical certificate, the ipsi dixit of the petitioner that she could not file the appeal because of ill-health, could not be accepted.  State Commission concluded that the petitioner had failed to put forth any good or sufficient ground to condone the delay.

Statutory period for filing the appeal is 30 days.  Delay of 6 times over the statutory period given for filing the appeal, cannot be lightly condoned under the Consumer Protection Act.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, consumer fora are required to dispose of the cases in a summary manner within a limited period.  District Forum is supposed to decide the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of filing and, in case, some evidence is required to be led, then within 150 days.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of nearly 6 months.  Dismissed.