F I N A L O R D E R

Brief facts of the instant case is that Respondent no. 1 issued a ‘Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance policy’ in favour of complainant’s husband being no. 4751220001799/E No. 4730952 which was valid for the period from 01-09-2000 to 31-08-2015.  Complainant’s husband died of an accident on 23-01-2010.  Complainant intimated the matter of such accidental death of her husband to the insurer on 18-02-2010. Thereafter, as per the direction of OP no. 1 complainant submitted different papers from time to time.  However, OP no. 1 vide its letter dt. 11-11-2010 repudiated her claim for want of identification proof of agency license or investment certificate although the complainant is not at all concerned with the said documents.  Subsequently, after expiry of more than two years complainant sent another letter on 06-04-2013 and in reply to such letter OP no. 1 informed vide their letter dt. 14-05-2013 that they stood on the same footing as stated in their letter dt. 11-11-2010, hence the case.

          In support of her claim, complainant submitted photocopies of policy certificate, Death Certificate of the beneficiary, GD lodged with OC, Phoolbagan P.S., copies of correspondences including the Repudiation letter of OP no. 1 dt. 11-11-2010 as also a copy of their letter dt. 14-05-2013 etc.

          Heard the submission of ld. lawyer for the complainant and also perused the documents on record.

          Point for consideration is whether the instant case is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or it is time barred?

          One of the important aspects that require to be considered while deciding about the maintainability of a case is whether it is filed within the period of limitation and if not, whether sufficient cause is shown thereof to get the said delay condoned.

          We find from the materials on record that OP no. 1 repudiated the claim of complainant vide their letter dt. 11-11-2010.  Admittedly, complainant approached the said OP again on 06-04-2013 i.e. after a gap of nearly 2½ years.  It is claimed by the complainant that after recovery of her heart ailment complainant approached the OP for reconsideration of the matter.  However, not a single piece of medical paper is placed on record to support such claim.  Apart from that, no separate application for condonation of delay in this case is filed by the complainant.  Therefore, we do not find any cogent ground to condone the delay in filing of the case beyond limitation period. 

          Although it is claimed by ld. lawyer for the complainant that the cause of action lastly arose on 14-05-2013 when OP no. 1 issued a letter addressed to the complainant reiterating their stand as regards repudiation of complainant’s claim, to our mind, however, insofar as complainant approached the insurer after a gap of more than 2 ½ without any valid reason, mere reply of the insurer reiterating their earlier position to the said lawyer’s letter does not give rise to any cause of action and accordingly, the instant case is not maintainable being hit by limitation.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

that the instant C. Case No. 68/2013 be and the same is dismissed against OPs being not maintainable under the law since time barred.