Delhi

StateCommission

A/464/2018

SATISH BABU - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SANJAY KUMAR

06 Aug 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

Date of hearing: 06.08.2019

Date of Decision : 09.08.2019

First Appeal No.464/2018

In the matter of:

SH. SATISH BABU s/o. Late Sh. Kailash Chander r/o. D-11, Dashrath Puri Gali No.7, Dadri Palam Road, New Delhi.

:

Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Sanjay Kumar Advocate

                       

Versus

 

	ICIC PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. ICICI Prulife Tower, 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai Through CEO/ Secretary	:	Counsel for the Respondent Sh. Sanjay Chuhan, Advocate
	The Senior Manager ICIC PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1st and 4th Floor, Mahatta Towers, Near Bloci-B-1, DDA Community Centre, Janakpuri, Delhi-110058
	Sanjay Arora, Insurance Advisor ICIC PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1st and 4th Floor, Mahatta Towers, Near Bloci-B-1, DDA Community Centre, Janakpuri, Delhi-110058
CORAM         :           HON’BLE SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

ANIL SRIVASTAVA– MEMBER

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1.                   Aggrieved by the orders dated 08.10.2018 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 in complaint case no. 314/2018 in the matter  of Sh. Satish Babu vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation,  the complainant before the District Forum has filed an appeal before this Commission, for short Appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) against ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Respondent alleging that the orders have been passed without appreciating the facts in right and earnest perspective. 

 

2.                   Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are these.

 

3.       The Appellant had taken a policy bearing no. 12071235 from the Respondent Co. in July 2009 wherein the the sum assured was Rs.3,00,000/- and the monthly premium payable was Rs.2,250/- for a period of 10 years.

 

4.                   The wife of the Appellant having fallen sick in the first week of May, 2015, the Appellant had approached the Bhagat Chandra Hospital,  Dwarka Mor, Delhi for treatment but the hospital authorities did not provide the medical aid.  The Appellant had approached subsequently a few other Hospitals for the purpose but there also he met same treatment.  The Appellant as a consequence thereof addressed letters to the Respondent Co. on various dates  requesting them to close the policy and refund the amount of premium deposited from 2009 to 2015 which amount in totality was to the tune of Rs.1,66,500/-.

 

5.                   The Respondent Co. not having responded to this request which request was followed by the legal notice also, this complaint was filed before t he District Forum which complaint stood dismissed on the ground of delay.  The case not having been deliberated upon on merit, this appeal was filed before this Commission.  The Respondent Co. were noticed they have defended the orders passed on the ground of limitation.

 

6.                   This matter was listed before this Commission on 06.08.2019 when the Counsel for both the sides appeared and advanced their arguments, the Appellant for setting aside the order passed by District Forum  and the Respondent Co. for upholding of t he orders.

 

7.                   Short question for adjudication in this appeal is whether the District Forum was just and right rejecting the complaint on the ground of limitation without appreciating the grounds taken by the Appellant/ complainant for the condonation of delay.  The specific ground taken by the Appellant/ complainant is that his wife having passed away he could not get his faculty proper to file this complaint within the time prescribed under Section 24A of the Act.  Section 24A of the Act posits as under:

 

“24A. Limitation Period – (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specifies the Distract Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be records its reasons for condoningsuch delay”

 

8.                     This provision of the Act enables this Commission to condone the delay in deserving cases keeping in view the facts and circumstances.  The District Forum however reached to a conclusion that no good ground for condonation of delay exists as delay of each day has not been duly explained exists.

 

9.                   I have read and re-read the  records of the case and I am of the view that t he grounds taken by the Appellant/ complainant for the condonation of delay are just and proper and it is the fit case where the delay ought to have been condoned.   

 

10.                   In the matter of Lakshmi Bai and Ors. vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance  Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported as III (2011) CPJ 507 (NC) Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is pleased to hold that remedy under the Act cannot be barred on the ground that the jurisdiction of the District Forum was not invoked within two years from the date the cause of action arose.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in that judgement is pleased to observe as under:

 

                        “14.     In the above cases, the remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, cannot be barred on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Consumer For a was not invoked within two years from the date of death/ incapacitation. Any contrary view in the matter, will result in the claimant/ consumer being penalized for the delay caused by the Respondent/ Insurance Company. ”

 

11.                   The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. Narinder Singh as reported in III (2015) CPJ 181 (NC) was pleased to condone t he delay as the case of the petitioner on merit appeared to be sound.  In yet another matter, in the matter of Krishna Plastic vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported IV (2014) CPJ 468 (NC) – the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission condoned  the delay, noticing the ailment of the petitioner.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an another matter of Lafarge Aggregates and Converts India Pvt. Ltd. vs. K. C. Bhardwaj reported in IV (2011) CPJ 674 (NC) on perusal of the orders passed by the District Forum is pleased to observe that the orders so passed are erroneous and not in accordance with even the bare principle of natural justice.  In such circumstances State Commission must take some positive view in respect of application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay.  Delay caused by the petitioner was not so serious and ground cited in petitioner’s application for condonation of delay not so utterly devoid of substance that delay could not have been condoned at all on some appropriate terms because even quick perusal of order of District Forum vis-à-vis pleadings, evidence and document brought on record ought to have led State Commission to serious questions on sustainability of finding and award of District Forum.  Thus the impugned order set aside and t he matter remanded back to District Forum for de novo adjudication of complainant.  In another matter, in the matter of Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vasant Kumar H. Khandelwal as reported in IV (2012) CPJ 445 (NC) the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has observed that if explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. 

 

12.                   The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Hemlata Verma vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance  Co. Ltd. the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5131/2019 (arising out of SLP (C) no. 14278/2019) is pleased to order on 01.07.2019 that the Consumer For a be liberal in the matter of condonation of delay observing as under:

 

            “7.       Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the revision petition before the Commission.

 

            8.         In our opinion, keeping view the averments and the grounds alleged in the application for condonation of delay, which we have perused, we are satisfied that it constitutes a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

 

            9.         We may consider it apposite to observe that the Commission while declining to condone the delay placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfileds Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361.  However, the later decision of this Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr., vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 has held that in matter of condonation of delay, the Court should take liberal view.  In our view, the Commission should have, therefore, taken not of subsequent decision of this Court on the issue of condonation of delay.”

 

 

13.                   Having regard to the discussion done and the legal position explained the appeal is allowed and the delay is condoned.  Accordingly orders passed by the District Forum are set aside with the request to the District Forum to hear and to dispose of the matter on merit giving proper opportunity to the parties to advance their arguments, evidence and written arguments. 

 

14.                   Ordered accordingly.   However while remanding the matter to the District Forum it is made clear that this be not taken as expression of opinion on merit of the case. 

 

15.                   A copy of this order be sent to concerned District Forum for information and necessary action.  A copy of the order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

 

16.                   File be consigned to record.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)​

Member