STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

Religare Health Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.56-58,  Sector 9­-D, Chandigarh 160017 through Ankit Bhardwaj, Manager-legal, authorized signatory, 3^rd floor, Vipul Tech Square, Tower C, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. 

                                                                          ….Appellant

                                                   Versus

Hatinder Gupta, House No.698, Sector 10, Panchkula (Haryana)

                                                                                               ……Respondent

                 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986                           against  order dated 22.03.2018 passed by District Consumer                          Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh in C.C.No.No.                           444/2017..

Argued by:  Mr.Sachin Ohri, Advocate for the appellant.

BEFORE:       JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                       MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                     Appellant/Opposite party has filed this appeal against order dated 22.03.2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(II), U.T. Chandigarh (for short the Forum only),  allowing a consumer complaint filed by the respondent/complainant. 

 2.           The appeal is barred by limitation of 14 days. To condone the delay, following explanation has been given ;

“That date of order is 22.03.2018. The copy of the order was prepared on 28.03.2018 and despatched by the registry of Ld. Distt. Forum on 03.04.2018 which was delivered at Chandigarh office on 04.04.2018. The copy of the said order was sent by the Chandigarh Office to Gurgaon office where legal team handles cases of North. Copy of the said order was received after 2-3 days at Gurgaon office. Later on 09.04.2018, Legal team discussed the matter with technical team. Then on 11.04.2018, technical tea recommended to challenge the order before higher Forum. On 16.04.2018, as per recommendation of the technical team, legal team discussed the matter with higher officers of the company.  On 18.04.2018, senior officer decided to file an appeal in this matter before Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh.  On 20.04.2018, the present counsel was engaged and documents were sent to him to file an appeal. On 24.04.2018, present counsel discussed the matter with the legal team for filing of an appeal. On 03.05.2018, present counsel sent the grounds of appeal for approval and signature. Later on, demand draft was prepared for filing of an appeal and signed grounds of appeal were sent to the counsel for filing of an appeal. Now, this appeal is being filed without any further delay.

3.             We have perused the record and found that the reasons given in the application seeking condonation of delay are not satisfactory. A casual approach has been adopted in filing the appeal.   As stated in the application, between 4-4-2018 to 24.4.2018 the matter remained only in discussion. It is not a very technical matter. To file appeal or not, decision should have been taken in a prompt manner. Delay in filing appeal, could have been avoided very conveniently by the appellant, had due diligence been shown by it. However, it was not done so. The Hon’ble  Supreme court in  Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors, V(2010) SLT 790-III, (2010) CLT 201 (SC),  observed as under:-

“The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its  power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.”

 In  Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013 the Hon’ble Supreme Court  had refused to condone the delay of even 13 days.

4.               Otherwise also, we are not inclined to interfere in the order, under challenge. It is not in dispute that the policy was cancelled in terms of guidelines issued by the Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority of India(IRDA) dated 9.9.2011. It is on record that insurance policy was issued on 3.9.2016 ; notice of cancellation was issued  vide letter dated  6.12.2016 and  cancellation was made effective whereof 10.1.2017.  By taking mandatory nature of the guidelines issued, it was rightly said by the Forum that the insurance policy could not have been cancelled at that stage.

5.                In view of  above discussion,   as no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 14 days, in filing the appeal, the application, thus, stands dismissed. Consequently, appeal also  fails, and the same is  dismissed.

6.          Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

7.              The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion