M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short “the Insurance Company”), has preferred this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) questioning the legality of order, dated 01.07.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short “the State Commission”), in C.M.A. No.397/2013.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined to condone a delay of 168 days in filing of appeal by the Petitioner against order, dated 20.09.2012, by the Surat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in C. No.209/2011.  The appeal has thus been dismissed as barred by limitation.  The District Forum had, inter alia, directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant/Respondent a sum of `7,25,000/-, the sum assured under the Life Insurance Policy.  The claim against the policy issued on20.01.2009, on the death of the insured on 03.04.2010, was repudiated on the ground that at the time of submitting the proposal on 21.11.2008, the insured had not disclosed that that he had “undergone biopsy of gum and cheek and diagnosed of Squamous Papilloma on 24.06.2008 and was under treatment for the same”.

        As noted above, since the Appeal was barred by limitation, the Petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay, in which, the following explanation was furnished :

“a.     That there is no deliberate and intentional delay on the part of present appellant.

b.       That Registered Head Office of the appellant is situated at Yerawada, Pune, Maharashtra.

c.       That certified copy of the judgement and order received on dated 8.10.2012 by the Ld.Advocate of the appellant.  That then after said certified copy of the judgement along with other necessary documents were sent to its Regional Office situated at Ahmedabad on dated 8.11.2012.  That then after said papers sent to competent authority at Head Office who translate whole records of Hon’ble Forum and ultimately decide to file an appeal against said order and judgment before the Hon’ble Commission.  Hence, certified copy of judgment and order and docket of the present file returned at Regional Office situated at Ahmedabad on dated 22.1.2013.  That then after the same has been sent to advocate on behalf of company on dated 25.1.2013.  But as some required documents are not received the same has been prepared on dated 30.1.2013 and then after memo of appeal along with delay condone petition and the same is being approved on dated 5.2.2013.  Hence, there is delay of about 168 days in preferring appeal against order and judgment of Hon’ble Forum.

d.       The appellant company states and submits that grave harm and prejudice would be caused to it, if the delay is not condoned whereas no harm or prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if the case is heard and disposed of on merits.“

We are of the opinion that the State Commission was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to make out any sufficient cause for condonation of the said inordinate delay.  Admittedly, on receipt of certified copy of the order, the local office of the Insurance Company took one month’s time to send it to the Regional Office and then to Head Office, which took over two months’ time to get the record translated.  We are constrained to observe that the conduct and the functioning of the Insurance Company is no better than the government bodies or their instrumentalities, which has been adversely commented upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ­­­­­­­­­Postmaster General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. – (2012) 3 SCC 563.  It has been observed that “condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments.  The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few”.

In Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial  Development  Authority – (2011) 14 SCC 578,  while condoning a delay of 233 days in filing appeal against an order of this Commission, the Supreme Court has observed that the entire object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes gets defeated if belated appeals and revisions are entertained.  Bearing in mind the aforenoted observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are unable to hold that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or material irregularity warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction.  We may note that as per the Biopsy Report, dated 24.06.2008, relied upon by the Insurance Company in their letter of repudiation, no evidence of Malignancy was seen.  Malignant Growth was noticed only in the CT Scan of Paranasal region conducted on 21.01.2009. 

For all these reasons, we decline to interfere with the impugned order.  Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

All interim applications stand disposed of.