Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/23/105

BALRAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

H . D . F. C LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY

22 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2023

(Arising out of order dated 21.01.2021 passed in C.C.No.664/2019 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

BALRAM S/O PRAKASH SINGH,

R/O VILLAGE-PIPARSANA,

TEHSIL-GOHAD, DISTRICT-BHIND (M.P.)                                               …   APPELLANT.

 

              Versus

 

HDFC LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED,

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

CITY CENTRE, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                             …. RESPONDENT.   

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER      

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 22.07.2024)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President: 

 

                    This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 21.01.2021 passed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.664/2019 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                Brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that the complainant’s brother Ramu during his life time had obtained a policy from the opposite party-insurance company for sum insured of Rs.8,50,000/-. During the

-2-

insurance cover, life assured had died on 18.08.2015. The complainant being nominee filed claim with the insurance company on 21.01.2016 but despite repeated visits and reminders the insurance company did not decide the claim. Later in October-2018 he came to know that the claim filed by him has already been repudiated by the insurance company on 03.05.2017. The ground for repudiation was shown as the life assured-deceased had given wrong information about his income in the proposal form while obtaining the insurance policy. The complainant therefore approached the District Commission seeking relief of Rs.1,00,000/- with compensation and costs of Rs.50,000/- 

 3.               The District Commission dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. 

4.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant has argued that the District Commission ignored this fact that the complainant received intimation regarding repudiation of claim on 03.05.2017 in the month of October-2018 and therefore the complaint filed on 06.12.2019 was well within limitation. He argued that instead of dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation, the District Commission ought to have decided the complaint on merits of the case. The District Commission did not consider this aspect that the opposite party-insurance company failed to prove that he was informed about repudiation. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-insurance company argued that the claim filed with the insurance company on 21.01.2016

-3-

was repudiated on 03.05.2017 of which intimation was given to the complainant. The complainant failed to prove that he did not receive intimation. The complaint filed on 06.12.2019 is barred by limitation and no application under Section 24A for condonation of has been filed. In order to show that the complainant is within limitation he took a plea that he received intimation about repudiation in the month of October-2018. He argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint and this appeal also deserves to be dismissed. 

7.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record we find that the deceased-insured took policy on 15.07.2015 (C-1) and he died on 18.08.2015. The complainant filed claim with the insurance company after a period of four months i.e. on 21.01.2016 (C-3) which was repudiated by the insurance company on 03.05.2017 (C-2) and was intimated to the complainant. The complainant pleaded that one of his friend’s friend informed him about repudiation in October-2018 however no affidavit of that friend’s friend has been filed on record. Also the complainant failed to prove that he received repudiation letter dated 03.05.2017 in the month of October-2018. The complainant also failed to prove that he visited the insurance company and gave reminders. No such reminder is filed on record.

8.                 The complainant filed the complaint on 06.12..2019 i.e. much beyond prescribed period of limitation of two years from the date of arisen of cause of action i.e. 03.05.2017. It is very important to mention here that the complainant did not file any application under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to condone the delay in filing complaint which is mandatory.

-4-

Thus without there being an application for condonation of delay, the District Commission on its own cannot condone the delay. Thus we find that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.

9.                It is also pertinent to mention here that against the impugned order dated 21.01.2021, the complainant has filed the present appeal on 17.01.2023 i.e after more than one year. The paid certified copy of impugned order has been filed in order to show that he received copy of impugned order belatedly. From the ordersheet of the District Commission it is evident that on behalf of the complainant free certified copy of impugned order had already been received on 22.01.2021. Thus this appeal is also barred by more than one year.

10.               In view of the above we find that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, it is hereby affirmed. This appeal is also barred by more than one year.

11.               In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.      

         

                      (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

                    Acting President                         Member