PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners who were the original complainants against the impugned order dated 26.2.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh by which the State Commission dismissed the M.A. No.225 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay of 402 days in filing their First Appeal before the State Commission. Resultantly, the State Commission also dismissed their F.A. No.138 of 2013 as being time-barred against the order dated 11.11.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sangrur whereby the District Forum had dismissed the complaint No.261 filed by the petitioners. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner No.1/complainant No.1 had taken a mediclaim insurance policy for his wife, petitioner No.2 and his son from respondent No.2 insurance co. in collaboration with respondent No.3 which is a Third Party Administrator (TPA) organisation. The policy was valid from 6.9.2010 to 5.9.2011. As per the allegations, the petitioner No.2 fell ill on 22.9.2010 and was admitted in a hospital at Sangrur for treatment but soon she had to be shifted to another hospital at Ludhiana for further treatment on 28.9.2010 where she remained admitted upto 16.10.2010. The petitioners spent an amount of Rs.14,360/- from 22.9.2010 to 28.9.2010 at the Sibia Hospital, Sangrur and Rs.1,87,260/- from 28.9.2010 to 16.10.2010 at DMC Hospital, Ludhiana on the treatment of petitioner No.2. Petitioners sent claim in respect of the expenditure incurred by them to the opposite parties but the same was rejected by them on the ground that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the expenditure on the treatment of hypertension and diabetes was not payable if contracted in the first two years of the policy. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the petitioners filed a consumer complaint seeking direction from the District Consumer Forum to the OPs to make payment of Rs.1 lakh towards reimbursement of medical bills and expenses along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 16.10.2011 till realization. OPs-1 & 2 / R-1 & 2 herein respectively appeared before the District Forum in response to notice while OP No.3 was proceeded ex parte. Opposite Party No.1, i.e, Punjab National Bank, Sangrur admitted that the OP-2 had issued a PNB-Oriental Royal Mediclaim Policy (Family Floater) for PNB account holders/employees for the period 6.9.2010 to 5.9.2010 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and their son was also covered under the policy. However, it was submitted by OP-1 that the real dispute was between OPs - 2 & 3 and the petitioners. OP-2 opposed the complaint and the claim of the petitioners by stating that the terms and conditions of the policy had been explained to the complainants before issuing the policy in their favour and as per the terms of the policy, the claim was not payable under Exclusion Clause No.4.1 and feature 1.2 of the policy. It was further stated that the patient / petitioner No.2 was a known case of diabetes and hypertension with surgical intervention done on 2.4.2010 prior to the inception of the policy on 6.9.2010 and hence the expenses for the treatment of hypertension and diabetes are not payable if contracted in the first two years of the policy. On considering the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum did not find any merit in the claim made by the petitioners and dismissed the same. Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioners filed an appeal against it before the State Commission which was dismissed by the State Commission in limine as being time-barred. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Commission against the impugned order of the State Commission. 3. We have heard Shri Subhash Chand, petitioner No.1 who has appeared for himself and petitioner No.2 and perused the record. We may note that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners on the ground of delay of 402 days in filing the appeal which the State Commission did not find appropriate to condone. The petitioners have not placed a copy of their M.A. No.225 of 2013 which they filed before the State Commission for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is seen from the impugned order that the main contention of the petitioners before the State Commission was that the delay in question was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason beyond the control of the petitioners because petitioner No.1 was taking care of his wife/petitioner No.2 and as such he could not contact the counsel for filing of the appeal and due to this reason, the delay of 402 days occurred in filing the appeal. It was further pleaded by the applicant that the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and prejudice will be caused if delay is not condoned and appeal is not decided on merits. While dismissing the application of the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the State Commission observed that the applicant had neither mentioned name of the hospital where petitioner No.2 was admitted nor given the details and dates of hospitalization supported by medical record or bills of the hospital/medicines. In the absence of necessary details supported by the documents, the State Commission held that sufficient cause had not been shown by the applicant for condonation of delay of 402 days and hence the M.A. was dismissed. Consequently, the State Commission dismissed the main appeal as barred by limitation. We may note that as per the judgements of the Apex Court, while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the court has to keep in mind that the specific period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeal and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the courts were to entertain highly belated appeals. It is also well-settled that the applicant who approaches the court for condonation of delay in question has to explain each and every day delay in a convincing and satisfactory manner so as to provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay by the court as envisaged under the law. In this case, we find that the petitioners miserably failed to explain the delay with documentary evidence to convince the State Commission that there was sufficient cause which led to the inordinate delay of 402 days occurred in filing their appeal. In our considered view, the State Commission was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of 402 days of delay and the main appeal. The petitioners have not placed any material which would persuade us to take a different view. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order dismissing the appeal of the petitioners on the ground of limitation. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in the revision petition. The District Forum has considered the contentions raised by the petitioners adequately and has recorded its reasons in para 9 of its order while dismissing the complaint. No fault could be found with the order of the District Forum on merits. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.