DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.186/2021
Sunil Puri
R/o B-16, 1st Floor,
Lajpat Nagar-III,
New Delhi-110065 ….Complainant
Versus
Royal Sundram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319,
Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR)
Karapakkam Chennai ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 28.06.2021
Date of Order : 18.12.2021
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The case of the complainant is that that he had taken and health insurance policy from the OP i.e. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. No. HS 0000 632 1000 104 which was valid from 06.12.2010 till 07.01.2011. The copy of the insurance policy is annexed as Annexure ‘A’. It is further stated that during the period of the insurance policy the complainant fell ill due to obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (hereinafter referred to as OSAS) and was hospitalized in AIIMS. The copy of the admission and discharge summary dated 05.01.2011 is annexed as Annexure ‘B’. The Complainant again fell on 01.03.2011 due to the same medical issue and was again hospitalized in AIIMS. The doctors prescribed him a BIPAP machine, the complainant filed his claim with the OP vide claim no. HR 0007 5587 .
The claim of the complainant was repudiated on 03.05.2011 and thereafter on 08.07.2011 on the ground that the complainant was admitted and hospitalized for a period of less than 24 hours. The OP also declined to pay the cost of the medical equipment called the BIPAP machine. The complainant sent various reminders to the OP vide letters dated 30.06.2011, 21.11.2014 however, did not receive any response from the OP. The complainant further alleges that he has spent an amount of Rs. 1,26,000/- on his treatment.
Before the complaint can be decided on merits, it is to be seen whether it is within limitation. The limitation period as prescribed under Section 69 of the C.P. Act 2019 for admission of a complaint by the consumer forum:
Limitation period - (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
From the aforesaid provision, it is imperative that this Commission should examine, before the admission of the Complaint, whether it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.
As has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission in Gian Gupta vs DDA CC No. 155/2010 decided on 16.08.2021 “The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the Complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality.”
In the present complaint, the Complainant has filed application for condonation of delay praying for condoning the delay of 2978 days in filing the complaint. The complainant further states that he was communicating with the OP for four-five years and thereafter was pursuing his case with his advocate. This application, in the view of this Commission, does not disclose any sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the present case and it seems to have been filed simply because it is required to be filed as per the mandate of the statute.
Therefore, the complaint is dismissed as being highly time barred, the file be consigned to the record room after providing copy of the order to the complainant. The order also be uploaded on the website.
