DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JULY, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT
: SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.
DATE OF FILING: 27.01.2024.
CC/37/2024
M.A.Parameswaran, S/o Late Velu Pillai, - Complainant
Mangalamkunnu Angadi,
Kattukulam PO, Palakkad-679 514.
(By Adv.M/s.Joseph Devasy and M.Ramesh)
Vs
Branch Manager, -Opposite Party
United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Branch Office, II Floor,
Parappurath Towers main Road,
Ottappalam-679 101.
(By Adv.M.Krishnadas)
ORDER
BY SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
1. Complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating his claim. Eventhough the opposite party collected extra premium due to overage loading, they repudiated the claim stating that the complainant’s elephant died due to shock resulting from the multiple organ failure which was caused due to the old age of the elephant and the complainant received a letter to that effect dated 18.11.2022. Considering the facts and circumstances, the complainant contacted the doctor who conducted the autopsy and he issued a note dated 03.12.2022 stating the reason/cause of death. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant without considering the certificate issued by doctor. So, he approached the Commission for getting the claim amount along with compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The opposite parties filed their version denying the allegations in the complaint. One of the main contentions raised by the opposite party is that the complaint is barred by limitation.
The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party and it was intimated to the complainant through letter dated 30.12.2019 and the complaint is filed on 27.01.2024 ie after a lapse of more than two years and hence, it is barred by limitation.
3. After filing of version, issues were framed. The first issue regarding limitation is taken as preliminary issue and heard the parties on this aspect and it is taken for orders on the question of maintainability.
4. The policy is issued by the opposite party covering the period from 12.02.2019 to midnight of 11.12.2020. The elephant died on 24.05.2019. The post mortem/autopsy of the elephant was conducted on 26.05.2019. On 30.12.2019, the opposite party repudiated the claim and intimated the complainant through letter. The letter of repudiation is produced by the complainant along with reply to another letter dated 01.11.2022.
5. Complainant in this regard raised the contention that since the opposite party had rejected the claim based on old age of the elephant, he approached the doctor who conducted autopsy for clarification and obtained a certificate dated 03.12.2022. The opposite party had rejected the claim without considering the letter issued by the doctor.
6. In the note issued by Dr.David Abraham, he had clearly stated that the post mortem was conducted on 25.05.2019 and the cause of death is the same as was clearly explained in the post mortem report.
7. If the complainant needed any clarification regarding the post mortem report, he would have definitely approached the Doctor on receipt of the repudiation letter. Here, he approached the Doctor for clarification nearly after three years. Such an act on the part of the complainant is an afterthought to create a fresh cause of action. Here, the actual cause of action starts from 30.12.2019 ie the date of repudiation of claim of the complainant. Complaint ought to have been filed by 30.12.2021.
8. Here the complaint is filed only on 27.01.2024 and hence, it is barred by limitation and it is not maintainable. It would be pertinent to note that once the period of limitation has ceased, a future communication will not extent the period.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 18th day of July, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
VIDYA A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:NIL
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : Nil.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
