BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 28^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

This  complaint  has been filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 (herein referred as “Act”),  Initially this complaint was filed by husband and wife to direct the OP to reimburse the claim of Rs.89,940/- with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of receipt till realization, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation.

2.      During the pendency of this complaint, the complainant No.2 died and her name came to be deleted as per order dated 15.02.2021.

3. The brief facts of the complaint is as under :

The complainants took the insurance policy from the OP for the period from 23.03.2015 to 22.03.2016 and complainant NO.2 took the treatment for medical grounds.  The complainant has spent Rs.38,396/- at Rashmi Hospital, Indiranagar, Bangalore and Rs.1,59,398/- during the existence of the policy on 14.08.2015 and on 09.09.2015.  the complainant No.1 had submitted two separate claims with OP on 20.09.2015 but both the claims were repudiated.  Accordingly the consumer complaint No.2088/2015 on the file of 4^th Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was filed.  After considering the pleading and evidence of the parties, the 4^th Additional Commission was pleased to allow the complaint vide order dated 28.08.2019.

4.    Even though complainant had incurred a sum of Rs.89,940/-, but in view of rejection of two claims in the year 2015 the complainant had not submitted the claim petition in respect of Rs.89,940/-.  Even though complainant No.1 incurred the above amount during the existence of policy, but in view of the order dated 28.08.2019 in CC No.2088/2015 the complainant got issued legal notice dated 28.11.2019 to OP to pay the claim amount of Rs.89,940/-. Despite service of notice, OP failed to issue reply.  Hence this complaint.

5.    Despite service of notice, the OP failed to appear before this commission.  The OP has been placed exparte.

6.    The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 21 documents.  Heard argument of the advocate for complainant.

7.    Perused records.

8.    The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

9. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Negative

      Point No.2:- Negative

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

10. Point Nos.1 and 2: These two points are co-related to each other.  Before referring the facts, pleaded by the complainant with reference to facts of complainant No.1 and documents, it is relevant to ascertain whether complaint is within time.  In order to ascertain the maintainability of complaint on the points of limitation, it is necessary to refer the facts pleaded by the complainant with reference to evidence of complainant No.1 and documentary evidence.
11. The complainants have admitted in the complaint, affidavit evidence of complainant No.1 and copy of the policy produced at page No.51 that complainant No.1 took policy for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of his wife Smt.Vedavalli by paying necessary insurance premium and policy was in force from 23.03.2015 to 22.03.2016.
12. It is also proved from the pleading and evidence that the earlier two claims of the complainant No.1 for Rs.38,396/- spent in August 2015 and Rs.1,59,398/- spent in the month of September 2015 were rejected by the OP and on repudiation of these two claims, the complainant had filed Complaint No.2088/2015 on the file of 4^th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and complaint came to be allowed on 20^th August 2019 as could be seen from the copy of the order produced at page No.10 to 22.
13. According to the complainants, the complainant No.1 has spent Rs.89,940/- during the year 2015 towards the medical expenses of his wife i.e., complainant No.2.  The documents produced by the complainant at page No.23 to 41 demonstrates that the complainant No.1 has spent an amount mentioned in the complaint to the tune of Rs.89,940/- between September 2015 to October 2015.
14. Complainants admitted in the complaint that they have not made any claim with OP for payment of Rs.89,940/- in the year 2015.  According to the complainants only after the order in CC No.2088/2015 dated 20.08.2019 they got issued legal notice at page No.44 on 22.11.2019 calling upon the OP to settle their claim of Rs.89,940/-.  This notice came to be served on the OP, but Op neither settled the claim nor issued any reply denying their liability.
15. Complainant No.1 has not submitted the claim petition along with legal notice dted 28.11.2019.
16. Even, taking into consideration, the complainant spent Rs.89,940/- during September and October 2015 during the substance of the insurance policy with the OP, we fail to understand, why the complainants have not made any claim with the OP for payment of Rs.89,940/- nor amended the complaint in CC No.2088/2015 to include Rs.89,940/-.  The complainants waited from 2015 till disposal of the complaint No.2088/2015 on 28.08.2019.  Only after disposal of the earlier complaint, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 28.11.2019.  Whether issuance of the legal notice gives fresh cause of action to the complainants.  The complainants had an opportunity to submit their claim petition for Rs.89,940/- with the OP.  The complainants remained silent for a long period of four years without submitting their claim petition.  The cause of auction to submit the claim petition arose to the complainants in October 2015.  The complainants themselves have not submitted the claim petition for a period of four years without giving any opportunity to the OP to consider their claim.  It is settled proposition of law that once the period of limitation starts to run, it will not stops anywhere.  We can understand, if the claim petition was made in the year 2015 and OP fails to take any action on such a claim petition in respect of Rs.89,940/- the complainant can be filed after repudiation.  But the complainants remain silent for a period of four years without submitting the claim petition.  The complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation.  When the complaint is barred by limitation, the alleged deficiency on the part of the OP does exist.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP, in fact complainant remained silent without any reasons and sufficient cause.  Only the OP has rejected their earlier two claim petitions, this claim petition right have not rejected.  This surmises and conjecture have no scope under the eye of law.  Therefore, complainant is not entitled to any claim against the OP. Hence we answer point No.1 and 2 in the negative
17. Point No.3: In view of the discussion referred above, complaint requires to be dismissed.  We proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Dismissed without cost.
2. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties and return the documents to the complainant with extra pleading.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^th  day of July, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 : Nil

HAV*