ORAL ORDER
Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 20/02/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.484/2008; Mr.Ramchandra Aba Gawade v/s. The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (‘forum’ in short). The consumer complaint was allowed and feeling aggrieved thereby, the original opponent preferred this appeal. Admit and heard forthwith with consent of both the parties. Alleged deficiency in service against the Life Insurance Corporation of India relates to Policy Nos.945132858 & 945132857 taken by respondent/original complainant – Mr.Ramchandra Aba Gawade (herein after referred as ‘complainant’), each covering risk of `1 lakh. On 12/09/2005 when the complainant was driving ST vehicle, where he was employed as a driver, in a journey from Kolhapur to Kodoli, on the way he was bitten by some persons. He was admitted in the Primary Health Centre at Pargaon and, thereafter, was shifted to the hospitals at Kolhapur and Miraj. As a result of said beating, complainant suffered Left hemilegic palsy. Due to such disability, his employer, namely, MSRTC terminated his services as a driver and reemployed him as a peon. On 06/02/2006, he preferred the insurance claim with reference to above referred policies, which stood repudiated on the ground that the policies under which he was making claim were already stood lapsed for not paying the premiums. Subsequently, this consumer complaint is filed. Insurance company repudiated the insurance claim also stating that the event as a result of which the disability incurred by the complainant, is not covered under the insurance policies besides the fact that the policies were already lapsed. In the instance case, the event which give cause of action for lodging the insurance claim arose on 12/09/2005. Admittedly, there is no application for condonation of delay made when the consumer complaint was filed in the year 2008. Therefore, in view of the apex court’s judgement in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V/s. National Insurance Co.Ltd. III(2009) CPJ 75 (SC), consumer complaint ought not to have been entertained, since it was time barred. Forum did not consider these aspects and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Besides this, forum further did not consider the status of the lapsed policy under which the insurance claims were made. Even according to the complainant as per the statement made in the complaint, due to his economic condition he allowed the policies to get lapsed. This particular aspect ought to have been considered along with other policy conditions. Therefore, we find ourselves not in agreement with the forum. We hold the claim is erroneously granted. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:- ORDER Appeal is allowed. Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is set aside. Original complaint no.484/2008 filed by the respondent on 25/06/2008 is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case no order as to costs. Amount which has been deposited by the appellant be paid to the appellant after the period to file revision is over. Pronounced on 16th November, 2011. | 
