Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Dr. Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member                          

                                                              ORDER                                       

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1. The instant complaint was filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act   by Late Sh. Anand Prakash claiming an amount of Rs. 90,000/- towards expenditure incurred on treatment of his wife along with interest @ 18% p.a. from July 2005 till realization along with compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental agony and torture inter-alia pleading therein that :

1. The complainant took mediclaim policy from OPs for his wife in September 1997 which was renewed from time to time. She was hospitalized at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in July 2005. Pre-hospitalization form was submitted by the Hospital Authorities for cash payment against the treatment however OPs rejected the request for cash payment pleading “exclusion in policy” and instructed the hospital to recover treatment expenditure from the  complainant.
2. Complainant wrote a letter dated 31.08.2005 to OPs to furnish a copy of the policy pointing  out the clause under which the request for cash payment was rejected. After the insured was discharged from the hospital claim was submitted to OPs ,however, claim was disallowed without proper investigation.
3. Complainant’s wife expired on 16.09.2006 due to torture and mental harassment by the hands of OPs. Complainant reiterated his claim vide his letters dated 02.07.2007  and 09.11.2009 with  OPs.
4.  Complainant saw an advertisement in the newspaper regarding IRDA grievance call centre and he wrote letters dated 06.06.2011, 27.09.2011, 17.05.2012 ,02.07.2012 and 04.10.2012 addressed to the Chairman IRDA for redressal of his grievances.
5. On 23.07.2013 he received a letter from Public Grievance Redressal Officer, IRDA informing him to contact IRDA Grievance Call Centre or file his case with the Ombudsman under RPG Rules 1998 depending on the nature of his grievances but no relief was provided.
6. On 21.02.2014 he received a letter from IRDA to the effect that the said agency plays only facilitative role in resolution of complaints and does not  adjudicate upon individual complaints and he was advised to approach insurance ombudsman.

2.  OPs filed reply and opposed the claim inter-alia on the grounds  that complainant has not placed any document on record to indicate that his wife was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and was discharged ,that complainant had taken policy for the first time for the period 10.04.2001 to 09.04.2002 and in the second year of policy there was a gap of three days in renewal which gap was not condoned and therefore the same falls in exclusion clause of pre-existing disease. The claim is vehemently opposed on the ground that insured was admitted in July 2005 whereas the instant claim was preferred in the year 2014 after a lapse of 9 years.
3. Arguments addressed by learned counsel  for complainant were heard.
4. Even as per averments made in the complaint itself the instant complaint has been filed after a long delay of about nine years which delay is not explained by the complainant.
5. In Para 4 of the complaint it is pleaded that  insured was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in July 2005. Copy of first letter written by the complainant to OP2 is dated 31.08.2005 wherein he protested against rejection of his claim by OPs on the ground  “Exclusion in Policy”. He called upon the  Ops to inform him about the clause which excluded payment of the claim of the complainant.  He further requested that document be supplied to him within a week  so that he could take further action. Then he kept silent and woke  up in July 2007 i.e. after about two years. He has placed on record copy of letter dated 02.07.2007 addressed to the OPs reiterating his claim of  Rs. 90,000/- in respect of treatment of his wife. Copy of next  letter on record is dated 25.07.2007 addressed to OP wherein he stated:

        “The claim is already overdue and in case the same is not made within a fortnight of the receipt hereof, I shall be obliged to proceed in the matter under the Consumer Protection Act with my further claim of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental torture etc.”

6. Although in  the letter the complainant very clearly wrote to the OPs to pay his dues within a fortnight otherwise he would file case under the Consumer Protection Act yet the complainant again slept over the matter for about two years and woke  up in September 2009 when he allegedly wrote letters  to OP on  15.09.2009 and later on 09.11.2009.
7. Then he again slept over the matter and woke up after about further two years when he wrote  a letter to IRDA on 06.06.2011 , 27.09.2011. Subsequently after about eight months he issued a reminders to IRDA on 17.05.2012 and then on  02.07.2012 , 04.10.2012  and 01.07.2013.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant has referred to a letter of IRDA dated 23.07.2013 wherein complainant was advised that in his case  complaint was not addressed  by the insurer within reasonable time (15 days) he could call IRDA Grievance Call Centre”  or file his case with Insurance Ombudsman depending on the nature of complainant’s grievances. There is nothing on record that complainant did anything within reasonable time even as per the said letter.
9. Learned counsel  has further  referred  to letter dated  21-02-2014  of IRDA vide which  the complainant was informed that IRDA  plays only facilitative role in resolution of complaints by insurers but does not adjudicate upon individual complaints. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it is only pursuant to the said letter dated 21.02.2014 of IRDA to approach appropriate forum for recovery of his dues that complainant filed the instant complaint on 01-10-2014  which is stated to be within the limitation.
10. Limitation does not start or end with writing letters here and there. The  Cause of action accrued in the year 2005 whereas the instant complaint was filed in the year 2014 i.e. after about 9 years as  is evident from the submissions made in the complaint itself. After writing the first letter dated 31.08.2015  to OP complainant kept silent and woke up after about two years in July 2007 then he wrote  second letter to the OPs on 02.07.2017. Then again he slept over the matter and woke up in September 2009 and thereafter again after two years he wrote letters dated 06.06.2011, 27.09.2011 to IRDA  and then there is complete silence from September 2011 to April 2012.Then  he wrote a letters on 17.05.2012 , 02.07.2012 and 04.10.2012 to IRDA. Again there is complete silence till July 2013 and thereafter.
11.  Complainant is not illiterate. He  knew where he had  to go for redressal of his grievances. In his own letter dated 25.07.2007 to OP , as reproduced above , he cautioned the OP to clear his dues within a fortnight failing which he would file his case under Consumer Protection Act. Law and equity aid the vigilant and not the indolent. If statute provides for specific limitation for filing a claim, it vests right with the OP on expiry of said limitation period which right should not be defeated by casual condonation of huge, unexplained delay (Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development , IV (2011)  CPJ 63 (SC).
12.  In the case of Pradeep Kumar Vs Assistant Finance Officer ,Delhi Vidyut Board, 2001 (1) CPR 9 it was observed that  a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merit of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control. The complainant  has failed to show any reasonable cause which  prevented him from approaching this forum.
13. In Ramlal Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd , AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it was observed that diligence of the party or its bonafides are relevant facts to determine whether or not delay is reasonably and sufficiently explained.
14. In N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy VII (1998) SLT 334 the Hon’ble Supreme court observed as under:

       “ Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.”

15.  In Office Of The Chief Post Master General & Ors  Vs Living Media India Ltd.& Anr., II (2012) SLT 312 it was held by the Apex Court that unless there is reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort delay should not be condoned because condonation of delay is an exception.
16.  In R. B. Ramalingam Vs R. B. Bhavaneshwari . 2013 (1) CCC 525 (NS)  2009 (2) Scale 108  it was observed that the true  guide to condone delay is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in prosecution of his petition.
17.  In Cicily Kallarackal Vs Vehicle Factory , IV (2012) CPJ 1 (SC)=VIII (2012)  SLT 585, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay special courts/ tribunals must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statue(s) and further that condoning inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature.
18.  In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Kailash Devi & Ors AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana (45) it was observed that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant.
19.  In Nirkari Industries Vs Noida Industrial Authority IV (2016) CPJ 121 the Hon’ble NCDRC did not entertain a complaint, since not filed within a period of two years from the date of cancellation of letter, since barred by limitation.
20.  In C.H. Vittal Ready Vs. The Manager,  District  vide order dated 04.12.2002 the Hon’ble NCDRC observed as under:

 “Condonation of delay when it is the complaint has to be taken very seriously and that is why proviso to sub section (2) of Section 24A mandates recording of reasons. It must be understood that a suit filed in a Civil Court after the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act has to be dismissed and there is no provision for condoning the delay on the ground of any sufficient cause being shown for not filing the suit within the period of limitation. This is the law which is in force since 1908 when the Limitation Act, 1908 came into force and same is the position of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sub section (2) of Section 24Ais a departure to the well settled law that a suit beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act has to be dismissed. A Consumer Forum has, therefore, to guard itself against the misuse of sub-section (2) of Section 24A and should not be quick to condone the delay unless cogent and verifiable reasons exist to condone the delay.”

21. In Baswaraj  Vs. Spl.Land Acquisition Officer 2013 (14) SCC 81 the Hon’ble Supreme court held that it is settled legal proposal that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party so it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.
22.  In Esha Bhattacharjee vs Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013 ) SCC 649 the Hon’ble Supreme court held that  concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the concept of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed an unfettered free play.
23.   In Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors, the Apex Court while dismissing the  Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013 , upheld the order of the National Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned.
24.  The  complaint in the instant case has failed to mention any reason seeking redressal of his grievances as against shadow on its bona fides.  The judgment cited above clearly stated that if statute provides for specific limitation for filing a claim, it vests right with the OP on expiry of said limitation period which right should not be defeated by casual condonation unexplained delay. There is reasonable explanation for the delay for seeking legal remedy  for redressal of complaint of  the legal injury.
25. In view of  the reasons stated above which are duly fortified by judgment of  Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble NCDRC   the complaint  is  dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

                   Announced this ___________day of __________2017.