Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/204

Lukesh Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

C.S.Chopra Adv.

09 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Miscellaneous Application No.37 of 30.03.2015

Consumer Complaint No. 204 of 25.03.2015

Date of Decision            :   09.09.2015

Lukesh Kumar Sharma

….. Applicant/Complainant

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd

…Respondent/Opposite party

 

APPLICATION FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IF ANY IN 

     FILING THE COMPLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For applicant/complainant                :           Sh.C.S.Chopra, Advocate

For respondent/OP                           :           Sh.Ajay Chawla, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Application for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the complaint filed by the applicant/complainant Sh.Lukesh Kumar Sharma by claiming that he is the only child/legal heir of deceased Sh.Ramesh Chander. Death of mother of complainant i.e. Smt.Anita Rani took place on 17.03.2007, but of his father took place on 11.04.2005, at the time when complainant was minor. Relatives from parental side of complainant refused to take his care and that is why, he was taken by his maternal uncle to Jalandhar. Few days earlier, complainant went to his late father’s home for getting his date of birth certificate alongwith other documents and then he got knowledge that his late father has taken a life policy No.000000348040 from OP. First premium was paid on 26.3.2004 and thereafter, regular premium was paid on quarterly basis. Last premium of Rs.10,622/- of the policy was paid on 11.3.2005. Mother of complainant persuaded the death claim of her husband, but the same was repudiated, despite the fact that mother of the complainant submitted all the documents. Thereafter, mother of the complainant persuaded the matter with other authorities, but she fell ill and subsequently expired. Complainant attained the age of majority on 21.5.2013, when he came in age of 18 years. Complainant alongwith his maternal uncle visited the office of respondent   for calling upon them to pay the claim amount, but officials of respondent refused, which has caused immense mental harassment, mental torture, pain and agony to the complainant. Even legal notice dated 24.2.2015 was served upon respondent through registered AD, but despite that payment not made and that is why, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed alongwith present application for condonation of delay.

2.                That application contested by claiming that letter dated 24.01.2008 was written by complainant and counter signed by his guardian Sh.Vijay Kumar for sending the same to OP for requesting them to disburse the death claim amount of his father. In that letter, address of correspondence of Jalandhar was mentioned. Complaint had attained sufficient maturity at that time. This complaint has been filed after delay of 8 years. Said letter was duly replied on 23.2.2008 by respondent. Complaint could have been filed by Sh.Lokesh Kumar Sharma through guardian Sh.Vijay Kumar even during minority of complainant. Besides complaint could have been filed by the complainant even after attaining the age of majority  in 2013. The time, date, month and year as to when the complainant visited  his father’s house in order to collect his date of birth certificate not mentioned. Smt.Anita Rani, nominee in the policy filed claim, but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 4.11.2005 because father of complainant suffered from Pulmonary TB for the last 2 years prior to his death and he was given anti-tubercular therapy for one year and that is why claim was duly repudiated. That repudiation of claim was not challenged by the nominee during her lifetime and as such, complainant has no right to challenge the same now. Mere issuing of legal notices does not extend the period of limitation and nor the same gives right to the complainant to file the present complaint. Complaint alleged to be barred in view of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.

3.                Arguments on application were heard.  

4.                Perusal of letter dated 13.01.2006 produced on record itself reveals that Smt.Anita Rani lodged the claim qua policy No.00348040 with OP, but the same was repudiated because her deceased husband namely Mr.Ramesh Chander was suffering from TB. This information was not provided in the proposal form and that is why, claim was repudiated. So for the first time, the surviving major legal heir of decease lodged the claim under the policy in 2006. That claim was repudiated on 13.01.2006 and as such, cause of action accrued since from 13.1.2006. Death of mother of complainant took place on 17.3.2007 as per para No.4 of the application. So virtually mother of complainant survived for 1 year and 2 month after repudiation of claim under the insurance policy in question, but despite that repudiation of claim not challenged by filing any complaint by Smt.Anita Rani.

5.                Copy of application sent by Sh.Vijay Kumar Sharma to The Manager, HDFC, SLI, Ludhiana produced today to show that legal guardian of complainant namely Sh.Vijay Kumar Sharma lodged claim under the policy in question again on 24.1.2008 by mentioning as if complainant, after death of his parents, residing with Sh.Vijay Kumar Sharma(Maternal Uncle). That application was submitted on 24.01.2008 and again after obtaining report from CMC, Ludhiana regarding sufferance of Sh.Ramesh Chander by Pulmonary Tuberculosis, claim was rejected through letter dated 23.2.2008. Intimation in that respect was sent to Sh.Vijay Kumar Sharma. Copy of that letter has been produced today on record. Facts regarding   earlier   pursuing   of    the    claim   by     maternal uncle of complainant have not been mentioned in the complaint or in the application for condonation of delay. So certainly there is suppression of material facts in this respect.

6.                It is the claim of the complainant himself that after death of his mother, he stayed with his maternal uncle Sh.Vijay Kumar Sharma and as such, it is obvious that guardian of complainant  pursued  the claim unsuccessfully and   got reply qua repudiation of the claim on 23.2.2008. However, this compliant   filed on 25.3.2015 alongwith application for condonation of delay i.e. after 7 years of repudiation of claim in question. As complainant was residing with his maternal uncle Sh.Vijay Kumar Sharma and as such, said guardian was competent to pursue the claim. As repudiation of claim preferred on behalf of complainant took place on 23.2.2008 and as such complaint could have been filed within 2 years from that repudiation. However, this compliant has been filed after 7 years of that repudiation by suppressing material facts qua earlier repudiation referred above and as such, virtually complaint has been filed for abusing the process of law.

7.                There is no dispute regarding the fact that complainant attained the age of majority on 19.5.2013, because his date of birth is mentioned as 20.5.1995 in the birth certificate. In view of that it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant/applicant that complaint could have been filed within 2 years from the date of attaining the age of majority by the complainant. As per law laid down in case LIC Unit No.2 & another vs Rahul Sehgal-II(2008)CPJ-219(Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh), complaint by minor can be filed within 2 years after attaining age of majority. However, ratio of this case is applicable, if earlier lodged claims by the guardians are not repudiated. However, position in the case before us is otherwise as discussed in detailed above. Suppression of material facts qua earlier repudiation of claims of mother of complainant as well as of complainant through guardian is there in this case. As and when, there is suppression of material facts, then equity does not favour if the parties seeking concession of condonation of delay. As and when there is suppression of material facts, than repudiation of claim even is justified as per law laid down in case Life Insurance Corporation of India and another vs. Vinita Kumari & another-III(2007)CPJ-408(Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula). As that suppression of material facts in this case has taken place due to non disclosure of the earlier repudiation and as such, complainant not entitled to concession of condonation of delay.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, we hold that application for condonation of delay merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, complaint filed by complainant also stand dismissed in view of S.24 of Act. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                        Member                                    President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:09.09.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.