IN RP/641/2013 The revision petition has been filed with delay of 21 days. The application for condonation is perused and counsel for the revision petitioner heard with reference to the same. Admittedly, the copy of the impugned order was received on 31.10.2012 and thereafter, the entire time is spent in exchange of records between the local counsel and their counsel at Delhi, resulting in delay of 21 days, which is wrongly reflected as two days in the application. This is not acceptable as reasonable explanation of delay and therefore the request is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 2. The impugned order itself was decided the matter on limitation. As seen from the records and the order of repudiation of the claim was communicated on 02.04.2004 and the consumer complaint was filed on 06.10.2006, resulting in delay of six months which has not been condoned by the State Commission. Learned counsel argues that the communication of repudiation itself was not received by the complainant however, that was not one ground pleaded before the District Forum. In any case, if the letter of repudiation was not received or was not within the knowledge of the complainant, then the cause of action would arise from the date of the loss itself. I therefore, find no merits in this belated attempt to find another ground for questioning the impugned order. RP/642/2013 The revision petition has been filed with delay of 21 days. The application for condonation is perused and counsel for the revision petitioner heard with reference to the same. As per record, copy of the impugned order was received on 31.10.2012 and thereafter, the entire time is spent in exchange of records between the local counsel and their counsel at Delhi, resulting in delay of 21 days, which is wrongly reflected as two days in the application. This is not acceptable as reasonable explanations of delay and therefore the request is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 2. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 10.08.2004 and the complaint against repudiation was filed before the District Forum on 24.08.2006. The resultant delay of 14 days has not been condoned. Admittedly, no application was moved before the District Forum in explanation of this delay of 14 days. The State Commission has therefore dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation observing that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period of two years as permissible under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 3. It stands to reason that if no application for condonation is filed, there would be no opportunity for the District Forum to either accept or reject the explanation for delay. Learned counsel argues that while communicating repudiation of the claim, the opposite party/insurance company had also informed that if not satisfied, the complainant could appeal to the Regional Authorities of the insurance company. This again has to be rejected as an attempt to move the case and take it beyond the original proceedings. Therefore, I find no merit in this revision petition. RP/643/2013 The revision petition has been filed with delay of 21 days. The application for condonation is perused and counsel for the revision petitioner heard with reference to the same. As per record, copy of the impugned order was received on 31.10.2012 and thereafter, the entire time is spent in exchange of records between the local counsel and their counsel at Delhi, resulting in delay of 21 days, which is wrongly reflected as two days in the application. This is not acceptable as reasonable explanations of delay and therefore the request is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 2. The treatment undergone by the complainant concluded on 01.04.2003. The State Commission has held that the complainant has failed to lead any evidence to prove that he had lodged any claim with the opposite party. Therefore, the Commission has observed that as no claim was lodged, no question of making the payment by the opposite parties is made out and therefore no deficiency of service is made out. 3. Learned counsel argues that in para-3 of the complaint before the District Forum, it is clearly mentioned that after getting the treatment, the complainant did lodge the claim with the opposite party No.1 and supplied the documents. However, the complaint does not give either the date of this claim or the amount for which the claim was made. It only refers to correspondence after the expiry of the period of policy itself. Learned counsel is unable to point out any specific evidence in this behalf, which was placed before the fora below and was either ignored or was not properly considered. Thus the revision petitioner fails to make out any case against the impugned order. For the reasons detailed above, the three revision petitions are dismissed on the grounds of delay as well as merit. | 
