Fact remains opposite party filed an application on 23-09-2013 praying for dismissal of the instant complaint as same is barred by limitation as per provision of Section 24A of the C.P. Act on the ground the instant complaint was filed on 19-07-2013 whereas the repudiation was made by the OP on 13-10-2010 i.e. long after three years from the date of repudiation and for which the present complaint should be dismissed as same is time barred and also on the ground that at the time of filing this complaint on 19-07-2013 no application for condonation of delay was filed by the complainant and complainant did not apply before the Forum that it was time barred and delay may be condoned and thereafter may be admitted.  But on the contrary the complaint was admitted on 14-08-2013 and before admission of the complaint no application u/s.24A of C.P. Act was filed so the present complaint should be dismissed on the ground it is hopelessly time barred.  Against that allegation of the OP complainant filed written objection and submitted that cause of action arose on and from 17-04-2012 when complainant made the representation of the consideration of mediclaim of the complainant by the OP against the order of repudiation of the claim dated 17-04-2012 and it was continued and for which the complaint is maintainable. 

          The matter was heard finally on 16-01-2004 and to day we are disposing of the same on proper merit.

Decision with Reasons

Truth is that complainant before filing this complaint filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and being No.WP 100 of 2005 which was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court on 19-03-2010 directing the OP to dispose of the claim application of the complainant by the insurance company and accordingly as per spirit of that order of the Hon’ble High Court the matter was taken up by the OP Insurance Company and, thereafter, OP Insurance Company by their letter dated 13-10-2010 informing the complainant the claim of the complainant further reconsidered and repudiated.  So, invariably cause of action arose on and from 13-10-2010 but the present complaint was filed on 19-07-2013 however, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that they also filed another application on 17-04-2012 for reconsideration of the said repudiation but against that no reply was made.  So, it is continuous cause of action and actual cause of action arose on 17-04-2012.

          We have mentally considered the contention of the Ld. Lawyer for the OP and the complainant and also considered that complainant went to Hon’ble High Court for relief and Hon’ble High Court in true spirit directed the OP to reconsider the claim of the complainant which had been earlier repudiated by higher authority of the Insurance Company and that order was passed on 19-03-2010 and, thereafter, after giving personal hearing to the complainant OP’s higher authority i.e. Divisional Manager further considered his claim and after thorough enquiry of the materials and documents came to the conclusion that complainant had been suffering from coronary artery diseases prior to purchasing the policy in the year 2000 and after proper consideration repudiated the claim on 13-10-2010.  So, under any circumstances complainant had no scope for prayer for reconsideration filed on 17-04-2012 but complainant has his scope as per order of the Hon’ble High Court passed on 19-03-2010 to file case to Civil Court or Consumer Forum after further reconsideration of his previous repudiation that is again repudiated on 13-10-2010.

          Most interesting factor is that from 13-10-2010 to 17-04-2012 complainant was sitting idle knowing fully well that his claim was further repudiated by the higher authority, Divisional Manager of the Insurance
Company for which we are convinced to hold that cause of action actually arose on 13-10-2010 not on and from the date of filing further prayer of reconsideration as filed on 17-04-2012 and in this regard it is settled principle of law limitation cannot be said by mere communication by the insured when in the present case complainant for second review of the repudiation claim got such order from the Hon’ble High Court and as per Hon’ble High Court’s order Divisional Manager reconsider his prayer and repudiated the same on 13-10-2010 then there was no other alternative on behalf of the complainant but to file before the Civil Court or the Forum.  Further it is already settled principle of law his limitation cannot be controlled or checked by sending subsequent letters and subsequent letters on behalf of the insured further reconsideration of earlier repudiation or repudiation of the insurance authority cannot safe the limitation.  So, considering that fact we are convinced to hold that complainant cannot claim with his cause of action arose on 17-04-2012 but this prayer was made unscrupulously only to save the limitation.  But truth is that on and from 13-10-2010 cause of action arose and admitted fact is that on 19-07-2013 this complaint was filed then it is clear actually as per provision of Section 24A of the C.P. Act the complaint should have been filed on 13-10-2012 but in place of that it was filed on 19-07-2013 that means complaint was filed after statutory period of limitation of 2 years from the date of cause of action on 13-10-2010 so apparently the complaint is helplessly barred by limitation as per provision of Section 24A of the C.P. Act.  Now, we shall have to consider whether there is any application for condonation of delay before admitting the complaint.  In this regard we have gathered there was no such prayer for condonation of delay u/s.24A of the C.P. Act along with the complaint on the date of filing of this compliant on 19-07-2013.  But the complaint was already admitted and it was proceed.  OP was served with notice and appeared and filed this application challenging the maintainability of this case on the ground of limitation.

          Apparently after considering the entire materials on record and the above fact we find that palpably complaint is barred by limitation and also fact that no application u/s.24A of the C.P. Act was filed for condonation of delay and for which there is no scope on the part of this Forum to condone delay automatically when such an application was not filed by the complainant along with complaint for condonation of delay as per provision of Section 24A of the C.P. Act and for which we are inclined to hold that this compliant is hopelessly time barred and barred b y limiotation and fact remains the complaint was filed on 19-07-2013 but actual cause of action arose on the very date 13-10-2010.  In the result, the complaint filed by the OP challenging the maintainability of this case on the ground of limitation bears merit in the eye of law and thus succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint be and the same is not maintainable on the ground that it is hopelessly time barred and as per provision of Section 24A of the C.P. Act and for which there is no other alternative but to dismiss the complaint and the complaint is time barred as per provision of Section 24A of the C.P. Act.