Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that Ram Raj son of Ramsamujh (husband of the complainant) was having loan account bearing No.09216 with Opposite Party No.2-Bank and said Opposite Party No.2-Bank introduced a policy of Opposite Party No.1 to said Ram Raj that only a mere amount will be deducted from his account on account of premium of policy and in case of any mishappening occurred with said Ram Raj, then Opposite Party No.2 will clear the entire outstanding of loan amount after got releasing the sum assured from the Opposite Party No.1 and will pay the remaining amount of insurance policy to the nominee of Ram Raj. As per the instructions and directions of Opposite Party No.2-Bank, said Ram Raj purchased a policy bearing No.ML00006 and in this regard, premium of policy was being deducted by Opposite Party No.2 from his account time to time as per the copy of pass book. Unfortunately during the policy bearing, said Ram Raj suddenly died on 16.04.2019. After the death of Ram Raj, the complainant being his nominee had sent all requisite documents to the Opposite Parties and filed claim regarding death of Ram Raj, but vide letter dated 03.09.2019, the Opposite Parties have rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the husband of the complainant was suffering from kidney disease, whereas the husband of the complainant was not suffering from any kidney disease. Moreover, at the time of issuance of insurance policy, the Opposite Parties never directed Raja Ram to get conducted his medical examination and in fact, the Opposite Parties mentioned at that time, that no medical examination is required for said policy. In view of this, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and they have illegally repudiated the genuine and legal claim of the complainant taking the false and frivolous ground and the Complainant is suffering in the hands of the Opposite Parties and hence, the Complainant also remained under mental tension and harassment. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties time and again for making the insurance claim, but the Opposite Parties flatly refused to reimburse the total claim of the complainant, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to release the amount of claim amounting to Rs.6 lakhs alongwith future interest @ 2 % per month from the date of death of Raja Ram till its actual realization.
b) The amount of Rs.80,000/- be allowed to be paid by the opposite parties on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.
c) The cost of complaint amounting to Rs.20,000/- may please be allowed.
d) And any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, Moga may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. In the instant case, the deceased life assured Ram Raj had taken a loan from A U Small Finance bank Limited and to secure the same he was added as member under Group Policy No.ML000006. The policy effective date was 16.08.2018 and the cover end date was 15.08.2021 and the loan account number was L9001060115354779. In group insurance policies, as per the said policy contract, a group of members availing any loan from the policy holder for specific purpose may be covered by the Opposite Party No.1 under the group insurance policy for the period and amount as specified in the certificate of Insurance issued to very such specified member subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Since the policy holder had fraudulently suppressed his past medical history from the proposal form, hence the company was well within its rights to repudiate the death claim preferred by the complainant. The deceased life assured Ram Raj did not disclose the correct information about his health and he deliberately and fraudulently failed to disclose that he was suffering from and was under going Haemodialysis since January 2018 due to Chronic Renal and was also suffering from accelerated hypertension, prior to the date on which application for insurance was signed. From the stated circumstances, it is evident that the deceased life assured Ram Raj had given wrong information and suppressed material facts from the company. On merits, Opposite Party No.1 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, Opposite Party No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant after application of mind and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
3. On the other hand, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2-Bank, and as such, Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Harshita Suresh Chaudhary Ex.OP1/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.Ops1/2 to Ex.Ops1/6 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that first of all, the written version filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. Opposite Party No.1 is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1. Further contended that at the time of issuance of the said policy to the complainant, no term and conditions were ever explained or supplied by Opposite Parties to the complainant. Further contended that Ram Raj son of Ramsamujh (husband of the complainant) was having loan account bearing No.09216 with Opposite Party No.2-Bank and said Opposite Party No.2-Bank introduced a policy of Opposite Party No.1 to said Ram Raj that only a mere amount will be deducted from his account on account of premium of policy and in case of any mishappening occurred with said Ram Raj, then Opposite Party No.2 will clear the entire outstanding of loan amount after got releasing the sum assured from the Opposite Party No.1 and will pay the remaining amount of insurance policy to the nominee of Ram Raj. As per the instructions and directions of Opposite Party No.2-Bank, said Ram Raj purchased a policy bearing No.ML00006 and in this regard, premium of policy was being deducted by Opposite Party No.2 from his account time to time as per the copy of pass book. Unfortunately during the policy bearing, said Ram Raj suddenly died on 16.04.2019. After the death of Ram Raj, the complainant being his nominee had sent all requisite documents to the Opposite Parties and filed claim regarding death of Ram Raj, but vide letter dated 03.09.2019, the Opposite Parties have rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the husband of the complainant was suffering from kidney disease, whereas the husband of the complainant was not suffering from any kidney disease. Moreover, at the time of issuance of insurance policy, the Opposite Parties never directed Raja Ram to get conducted his medical examination and in fact, the Opposite Parties mentioned at that time, that no medical examination is required for said policy. In view of this, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and they have illegally repudiated the genuine and legal claim of the complainant taking the false and frivolous ground and the Complainant is suffering in the hands of the Opposite Parties. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties time and again for the redressal of her grievances, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and hence the ground for the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is quite illegal and false one.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. In the instant case, the deceased life assured Ram Raj had taken a loan from A U Small Finance bank Limited and to secure the same he was added as member under Group Policy No.ML000006. The policy effective date was 16.08.2018 and the cover end date was 15.08.2021 and the loan account number was L9001060115354779. In group insurance policies, as per the said policy contract, a group of members availing any loan from the policy holder for specific purpose may eb covered by the Opposite Party No.1 under the group insurance policy for the period and amount as specified in the certificate of Insurance issued to very such specified member subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Since the policy holder had fraudulently suppressed his past medical history from the proposal form, hence the company was well within its rights to repudiate the death claim preferred by the complainant. The deceased life assured Ram Raj did not disclose the correct information about his health and he deliberately and fraudulently failed to disclose that he was suffering from and was under going Haemodialysis since January 2018 due to Chronic Renal and was also suffering from accelerated hypertension, prior to the date on which application for insurance was signed. From the stated circumstances, it is evident that the deceased life assured Ram Raj had given wrong information and suppressed material facts from the company and Opposite Party No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant after application of mind.
9. Perusal of the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant shows that the written version filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. The Opposite Party No.1 is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment (2011)II Supreme Court Cases 524 titled as “State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd.” and in para no.11 of the judgment, has held that
“the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. On the plea that one authority letter dated 02.01.2003 was issued by Sh. R.K.Shukla in favour of Sh. A.K.Shukla. Further plaint failed to place on record its memorandum/articles to show that Sh. R.k.Shukla has been vested with the powers or had been given a general power of attorney on behalf of the Company to sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the Company.”
Similar proposition came before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Nibro Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.”, 2 (2005) 5SCC 30 that the
“bear authority is not recognized under law and ultimately, it was held that the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. Here also appellant has not placed on record any resolution passed by any Board of Director in favour of Mr. Soonwon Kwon and that he was further authorised to delegate his power in favour of any other person. Further there is no memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Mr. Soonwon Kwon is one of the Director of the Company. In the absence of that evidence on record we cannot say that the special power of attorney given by Director Soonwon Kwon is a competent power of attorney issued in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh. In the absence of any resolution of the Company or any memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Sh. Soonwon Kwon is Director and that he was further authorised to issue power of attorney in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh.”
Recently our own Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in FAO No.1235 of 2015 decided on 25.01.2017 in case titled as L.G.Electronics India Private Limited Vs. Sita Ram Chaudhary also held that the plaint instituted by an unauthorized person has no legal effect.
10. For the sake of arguments, for the time being, if the written reply filed by Opposite Party No. 1is presumed to be correct, the next plea raised by Opposite Party is that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled to the claim as claimed. But the Opposite Party could not produce any evidence to prove that terms and conditions of the policy were ever supplied to the complainant insured, when and through which mode? It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satpal Singh & Others 2014(2) CLT page 305 that the insured is not bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy unless it is proved that policy was supplied to the insured by the insurance company. Onus to prove that terms and conditions of the policy were supplied to the insured lies upon the insurance company. From the perusal of the entire evidence produced on record by the Opposite Party, it is clear that Opposite Party has failed to prove on record that they did supply the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant insured. As such, these terms and conditions, particularly the exclusion clause of the policy is not binding upon the insured. Reliance in this connection can be had on Modern Insulators Ltd.Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2000) 2 SCC 734, wherein it is held that “In view of the above settled position of law, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the National Commission is not correct. As the above terms and conditions of the standard policy wherein the exclusion clause was included, were neither a part of the contract of insurance nor disclosed to the appellant, the respondent can not claim the benefit of the said exclusion clause. Therefore, the finding of the National Commission is untenable in law.” Our own Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in First Appeal No.871 of 2014 decided on 03.02.2017 in case titled as Veena Mahajan (Widow) and others Vs. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited in para No.5 has held that
“Counsel for the appellant argued that copy of insurance policy was not supplied to the appellant and hence, the exclusion clause in the contract of the insurance policy is not binding upon him. He further argued that no proof of sending of insurance policy was ever produced by the respondent despite specific contention raised by the complainant that the insurance policy was never received by him. He argued that though there is an averment of the OP that the policy in question was delivered through Blue Dart Courier to the complainant. In order to prove their contention, no affidavit of any employee of Blue Dart was produced who would have made a statement to have the effect that the policy was delivered to the complainant nor any acknowledgement slip for having received the article by the complainant through courier company was produced by the insurance company. He argued that since no policy document was received by the insured and argued that the terms and conditions as alleged to be part of the insurance policy were not binding upon the insured. He argued that policy was issued in the name of deceased Sh.Vijinder Pal Mahajan with his wife Mrs.Veena Mahajan as beneficiary and the same was never refused by the OP and the proper premium for insurance was paid by late complainant. He argued that as per the specific allegations made in the complaint in para No.4, no rebuttal to that contention was specifically there in their written reply in para No.2 and para No.4 in the reply filed by OP in the District Forum. He argued that Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case of "Ashok Sharma Vs. National Insurance Co. Limited", in Revision Petition No. 2708 of 2013 held in para No.8 to the point of non-delivery of terms and conditions of the policy. He also cited Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision given in the matter of "United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. M.K.J.Corporation" in Appeal (civil) 6075-6076 of 1995 (1996) 6 SCC 428 wherein the Apex court held that a fundamental principle of Insurance Law makes it that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties. Good faith forbids either party from concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of that fact and his believing the contrary. Just as the insured has a duty to disclose, "similarly, it is the duty of the insurers and their agents to disclose all material facts within their knowledge, since obligation of good faith applies to them equally with the assured and further argued that since the terms and conditions were not supplied even on repeated requests the same cannot be relied upon by the opposite party in order to report to repudiate the genuine claim of the wife of the deceased policy holder.”
- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case. The first contention is that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint, because as per the said policy contract, a group of members availing any loan from the policy holder for specific purpose may be covered by the Opposite Party No.1 under the group insurance policy for the period and amount as specified in the certificate of Insurance issued to very such specified member subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Since the policy holder had fraudulently suppressed his past medical history from the proposal form, hence the company was well within its rights to repudiate the death claim preferred by the complainant. The evidence on the record has been perused by this District Consumer Commission. Ex.OP1/6 is the document issued to complainant on the side of Opposite Party No.1 regarding repudiation of claim. This document makes it clear that OPs issued the policy to deceased life assured Ram Raj. The certificate of insurance is Ex.C-2 on the record to establish this fact that Satiya Devi wife of deceased life assured Ram Raj was the nominee of the said policy. Ex.C5 is the copy of statement vide which the Opposite Party No.1 used to deduct the premium from the account of deceased life assured Ram Raj to secure the liability of Opposite Party No.2-Bank. It is, thus, plain from perusal of above referred documents and pleadings of the parties and submissions of counsel for the parties, that Opposite Party No.1 charged premium amount from deceased life assured Ram Raj and issued the policy accordingly . The Opposite Parties are now estopped from denying the fact of availing the services of OP no.1 by DLA. This fact should have been taken care of by the Opposite Parties before receiving the premium and issuing the policy. Once the contract of insurance has been concluded between the parties, they are bound by the same. We find no force in this submission, as advanced before us by counsel for the Opposite Party No.1. Once Opposite Party No.1 has received the premium from deceased life assured Ram Raj and issued the policy, then they cannot back out from the same on such type of pleas.
- The next point for adjudication vehemently contended before us by the Opposite Party No.1 is that deceased life assured Ram Raj was suffering from pre-existing disease of kidney and he suppressed this material fact from Opposite Parties, when he took the insurance policy. On this point, evidence has to be referred to by us on the record. The onus to establish this fact is upon the Opposite Parties in this case. We have perused the copies of medical record placed by Opposite Party No.1 of Sham Nursing Home & Heart Centre Ex.OP1/5, but there is neither any affidavit nor complete particulars of the investigator recorded in them. Even the original certificate has not been placed on the record. There is no affidavit of doctor of the treating hospital to establish this fact on the record regarding previous disease of insured. He is a private doctor and not posted in any recognized health institute or government hospital. We are unable to rely upon the above referred investigation report appended with the Photostat copy of medical record of deceased life assured Ram Raj. In the absence of any affidavit of investigator and the affidavit of treating doctor of the hospital, we do not place any reliance upon these documents, as pressed into service by the Opposite Parties in this case. Consequently, we are of this view that Opposite Parties have failed to discharge the onus solemnly laid upon it to prove this fact that deceased life assured Ram Raj was suffering from above pre-existing disease before taking the policy and he deliberately and fraudulently concealed this material fact from Opposite Parties. We, thus, conclude that there is no substantive evidence on the record to prove this fact that deceased life assured Ram Raj was suffering from any kidney disease before he took the insurance policy and he willfully suppressed this fact fraudulently from the Opposite Parties. Moreover, if the deceased life assured Ram Raj was suffering from any diseases prior to issuance of the policy, in question, the same must not have escaped the notice of the empanelled doctors of the Insurance Company. However, no such investigation record has been produced by the opposite parties. In case Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar III (2014) CPJ 221 (NC), it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that “usually, the authorized doctor of the Insurance Company examines the insured to assess the fitness and after complete satisfaction, the policy is issued. It was held that the Insurance Company wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.”
13. Furthermore, as per the proposal form dated 28.07.2018, at the time of obtaining the policy, deceased life assured Ram Raj has duly mentioned his age in the proposal form as 15.09.1971 (meaning thereby which is more than 45 years, so it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company to get the deceased life assured Ram Raj medically examined before issuing the policy in his name who was above 45 years of age. In support of his contention Ld.counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon I.R.D.A.I Rules and Instructions with regard to thorough medical examination if the insured is more than 45 years which is reproduced as under:-
“As per instructions issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), it was bounded duty of the insurer to put insured to thorough medical examination in case Mediclaim insured was more than 45 years and if insurance company failed to do so then insurance company has no right to decline the insurance claim on account of non disclosure of the facts of pre existing disease when the policy was taken. The above observations is supported by law cited in SBI General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balwinder Singh Jolly” 2016(4) CLT 372 of the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh.”
However, the opposite party has not placed on record any evidence that before issuing the policy they ever got medically examined the insured . So the abovesaid law squarely covers the case of the complainant that it was the duty of the insurer to get medically examined while issuing the policy and once the policy was issued the insurer cannot take the plea of pre-existing disease of the insured.
14. It also needs to be mentioned that Section 19 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 states that it shall be the duty of every Insurance Company to carry on general insurance business so as to develop it to the best advantage of the community. The denial of medical expenses reimbursement is utterly arbitrary on the ground that disease in question was pre-existing disease. It is mere an excuse to escape liability and is not bona fide intention of the insurance company. Fairness and non-arbitrariness are considered as two immutable pillars supporting the equity principle, an unshakable threshold of State and public behavior. Any policy in the realm of insurance company should be informed, fair and non-arbitrary. When the insurance policy has exclusions/conditions to repudiate the claim or limit the liability, the same must be specifically brought to the notice of the insured and are required to be got signed to show that such exclusions and conditions have been brought to his/her notice. Recently, our own Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 50 of 2019 titled as Bajaj Alliance General Vs. Arjan Singh decided on 04.03.2021 also held so.
15. The need for interpreting a contract always arises in two situations, (i) when a gap is needed to be filled in the contract and (ii) an ambiguity is needed to be resolved in the contract, then to find out correct intention of the contract, spirit behind it is required to be considered. Normally, the insurance policy is a contract of adhesion in which other party is left with hardly any bargaining power as compared to the insurer. Insurance contracts are standard form contracts and are drafted by the insurance company and as such, insurance company is at higher footing than the insured. The benefit of such clause, as exclusion clause, would go to the insured unless the same is explained in clear terms by the insurer. In such circumstances, the tribunal would be more oriented towards the interpretation which goes against the party who has inserted/drafted the disputed clause in the agreement/contract. The adjudicating authority is required to look into whether the intention of the party is to exclude or limit liability has been appropriately explained to the other party or not. This Commission while interpreting insurance agreement is to honour the intention of the parties, who have signed the agreement. Even if the agreement had general exclusion/condition for misrepresentation still fraudulent misrepresentation and non-disclosure may not be there. The innocent and negligent misrepresentations are to be ignored. On the other hand, the rulings (i) Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (ii) Murti Devi Vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance and (iii) Mamohan nanda Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, cited by the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties are not applicable and relevant to the facts of the present case. The insurance companies are in haste to charge the premium, but when the time to pay the insurance claim comes, they generally take up one excuse or the other to avoid their liability. The reliance of counsel for the appellant on law laid down in “Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Priya Sharma & others” 2012(4)CPJ-646, “Life Insurance Corporation of India & others Vs. Harbans Kaur” 2009(3)CPC-677, and “Life Insurance Corporation of India & another Vs. Ashok Manocha” 2011(3)CPC-285, would have been applicable, had this fact been established that life assured suffered from pre-existing ailment of kidney and he deliberately suppressed this fact fraudulently from the Opposite Parties, when he took the insurance policy. In view of our finding recorded above that Opposite Parties had failed to prove this fact that deceased life assured Ram Raj was suffering from any pre-existing ailment of kidney and hence these authorities would not be attracted in this case. In this regard, on the same and similar facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in First Appeal No.62 of 2015 decided on 02.02.2017 in case India First Life Insurance Vs. Ms.Sudesh Rani also held so.
16. In such a situation the repudiation made by Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company regarding genuine claim of the complainant have been made without application of mind. It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pasters to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation. This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-
“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.
17. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Party-Insurance Company have wrongly and illegally rejected the claim of the complainant.
18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the Complainant and direct Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Opposite Parties to make the insurance claim of Rs.6 lakhs (Rupees six lakhs only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 18.03.2020 till its realization. Opposite Party No.1–Insurance Company is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing her mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousands only) and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) as litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
19. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
