Delhi

StateCommission

A/49/2016

GUNISHA KOHLI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AVNISH AHLAWAT

14 Sep 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :14.09.2017

Date of Decision :19.9.2017

First Appeal No.49/2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Gunisha Kohli(minor) Daughter

Of Late Shri Snjay Kohli

Through her mother, the natural

guardian/s Kavita Kohli

HouseNo. 52 A, Pocket B

Vikas Puri Extension

New Delhi-18.                                                                                                            ……Appellant                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Versus

 

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its Vice  President

Claim  and Grievance Management

Videocon Tower, E-1 Block

Jhandewalan  Extension

New Delhi

Also at Regd.Office

ICICI Pru LifeTower, 1089,

Appasaheb Marathe Marg

Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.                                                                      …..Respondent

             

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                Yes/No

SHRI O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

          The complainant has come in the present appeal against order dated 09.03.15 passed by District Forum (Central) in CC No. 255/12 dismissing the complaint.  District Forum fund that OP/Respondent was justified in repudiating the claim on the plea of concealment of treatment of diabetes for the last 5 years, which was also known case of hypertension for the last two to three years.

2.      There is delay of about 100 days in filing the appeal,  The appeal has been  filed on 29.01.16. The appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay.  Strangely enough the appellant has not disclosed  the period of delay in appeal and has left relevant column in para 7 of the application blank. The application proceeds on the averment that arguments were heard on 05.03.15 and matter was adjourned without any date for orders.  Since there was no date for announcing order neither the applicant nor her counsel came to know about order passed by District Forum.  There was  nothing on the website nor any copy of the order was received by the complainant or her counsel on 19.03.15  or thereafter.  It was somewhere in the end of December that matter was again checked on Net and the order was found available as pronounced on 09.03.15. He applied for copy and obtained the same on 10.12.15. Thereafter she approached the counsel for filing the appeal.

3.      The application has been opposed by the respondent who has filed a detailed reply.

4.      We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.  It is not believable that complainant did not receive copy of the order which must have been sent by post as required by Rules under Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order contains dispatch number, date of dispatch on the top of the order. The date of dispatch is 26.03.15. It is not the case of the appellant that her address has changed or that is why she could not receive the copy of order. Infact the appeal contains the same address as mentioned in copy of order of District Forum.

5.      Presuming for the sake of argument that the order was not received by the appellant in time, according to her own case she obtained the certified copy from District Forum on 10.12.15. What happened thereafter, why the appeal was not filed till 29.01.16. 

6.      The appellant has taken the matter very casually.  As observed in the earlier part of the order she has not given the number of days by which appeal is delayed beyond limitation.

7.      Counsel for the respondent relied upon decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Enforcement Directorate vs. M/s Morgan Industries Ltd. ILR(2014)3 Delhi 2322.  In para 7 of the judgement it has been held that the delay had not been explained.  The reasons given by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal did not constitute sufficient cause.  Rather it revealed ht there was inaction and negligence on the part of the various officers.  Nothing has been explained. There was slackness on the part of the appellant to take remedial steps. Delay cannot be condoned as a matter of routine as vested right accrues in favour of the opposite party and benefit of such right cannot be disturbed lightly.

8.      Applying the said law application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  With this appeal also stands dismissed as being barred by limitation.

9.      Even on merits we do not find force in the appeal. District Forum has rightly concluded that appellant was guilty of misrepresentation of facts in obtaining mediclaim policy.

          Appeal is dismissed.

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

          One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

         

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                                        (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                                                             MEMBER (JUDICIAL)