Dtd.28.11.2024                                            A/2463/2022

O R D E R

          BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by Complainant/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.07.11.2022 passed in CC/137/2021 on the file of 4^th Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru urban. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).
2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard. Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be

Whether the impugned order dtd.07.11.2022 passed in CC/137/2021 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

3. It is not in dispute that Complainant has obtained a policy bearing no.12279295, which is a health insurance policy and it was enrolled on 27.09.2009. It is not in dispute that he has paid premium till 2016 and had failed to pay two consecutive premiums. In his complaint he has stated about his knowledge about foreclosing of the policy for non payment of premium amount on 12.07.2018. He has also stated that for non payment of two consecutive years the policy came to be cancelled. The complainant has alleged against Ops, prior to such cancellation of the policy, OP had failed to inform him to get the policy renewed and without giving any opportunity for renewal of the policy, OP has foreclosed the policy is nothing but rendering deficiency of service has considerable force. Appellant in his appeal memo submitted as per terms and conditions of the policy it was the bounden duty of OP/insurer to intimate the insured before cancellation of the policy is not rebutted by the insurer during the course of enquiry held by DCDRC, yet   District Commission has failed to examine not only the terms and conditions of the policy under which they are bound, but also failed to consider the date of issuance of prior notice to the Complainant before cancellation  of the policy, the date of repudiation, the limitation provided under Limitation Act, the limitation provided under Sec.24A of CPA 1986 or Sec.69 of CPA 2019 as the case may be in right perception. It is true that, under CPA limitation provided to raise complaint is 2 years time, whereas under Limitation Act is it is 3 years, still parties to the policy are governed by terms and conditions of the policy and the proviso to very provisions of CPA also empower the DCDRC to entertain the complaint even after expiry of the limitation for sufficient cause shown. However the District Commission has failed to appreciate all such vital aspects of the case keeping in mind the object of CPA, before passing the impugned order. Further we are of the view, dismissal of the complaint not only on the point of limitation but on merits is held improper, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently set aside the order dtd.07.11.2022 passed in CC/137/2021 on the file of 4^th Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru urban District with a direction to readmit the CC/137/2021 on its file and decide the complaint afresh affording opportunity to both parties as early as possible keeping in mind the object of CPA 2019.
4. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

Lady Member                                    Judicial Member 

NS