We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 

2.      The revision petition has been filed after causing delay of 184 days.  The impugned order of the State Commission was rendered on 21.10.2010 whereas the revision petition is filed on 22.07.2011.  Though there is much more delay, yet, excluding the time consumed in obtaining the certified copy, the delay is said to be of 184 days.

3.      The application for condonation of delay shows that the revision petitioner was suffering from heart ailment and had to undergo bypass surgery during the pending proceedings before the District Forum.  It is also alleged that dismissal of his complaint had negatively affected his health and he was subjected to prolong mental agony and pain.  It is further alleged that he was unable to earn livelihood and was unable to arrange funds for approaching this Commission.  The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sympathetic view of the fact has to be taken as the petitioner hails from remote place and hence been deprived of the due repudiation made by the insurance company.  He submits that the delay is unintentional and caused only due to lack of funds as well as heart ailment of the petitioner. Consequently, he urged to allow the application and condone the delay.

4.      It is pertinent to notice that the revision petitioner has not raised any ground to show that he had no access to the consumer forum on account of remoteness of his place of residence.  The only ground tried to be canvassed is that he was suffering from heart ailment and had undergone bypass surgery during the proceedings pending before the trial court, i.e. the District Forum.  No details about the date of bypass surgery and the period for which he was required to take the treatment after the operation, has been mentioned in the application.  More over, that ground is unavailable inasmuch as the bypass surgery was conducted during the period of the proceedings pending before the District Forum and thereafter he had preferred appeal before the State Commission vide FA 71/2010.  In other words, the so called ground of his heart ailment did not exist at the relevant time when the appeal was filed by him before the State Commission and as such, it cannot be treated as a ground available before the revisional forum.  The vague allegation that the petitioner was unable to arrange for the funds is also not a good ground because he could have preferred the revision petition with the assistance of legal aid services.  In fact, the application is not founded on acceptable, reasonable and sufficient grounds.  Nothing turns on the so-called ground, past ailment, which became ‘stale’ at the appellate stage itself.  In this view of the matter, we are unable to appreciate and accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.  The application is, accordingly, dismissed.  It may be also mentioned that since the revision petition is against the concurrent findings of facts, on merits too, we do not find any prima facie case to surmount the difficulty of the delay committed by the petitioner in filing of the revision petition.  Hence, the revision petition too is  dismissed.