PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT 

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he has taken mediclaim policy from the opponent.  It was in force in the year-2007.  In the year-2007, the complainant had problem of kidney stone and for that purpose he was admitted in the Bombay Hospital on 29^th May, 2007.  He has submitted his claim to the opponent but the same was repudiated by the opponent by the letter dated 29^th February, 2008.  Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of his claim of Rs.2,71,766.48/- with interest and for damages. As there is delay, the complainant has filed application for condonation of delay.  According to the complainant, because of his financial difficulties and ignorance of law, he could not file complaint within time limit therefore he has filed application for delay condonation. 

2)                It is opposed by the opponent.  According to the opponent, delay is not properly explained therefore the complaint should be dismissed.

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No. 1 & 2 :- The policy is admitted.  It is also admitted that the complainant submitted the claim and the opponent repudiated it vide letter dated 29^th February, 2008.  The complainant has produced the copy of repudiation letter sent by the opponent.  In this letter, the opponent has specifically stated that the claim is not admissible on the ground of special exclusion.  It was necessary for the complainant to file this complaint within two years from the receipt of this letter.  The complaint is filed on 26^th July, 2013 i.e. after five years from the receipt of repudiation letter.  There is specific provision i.e. Sec.24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to file the complaint within two years from the cause of action.  Cause of action arose from the date of repudiation.

5)                According to the complainant, he could not file the complaint within time limit due to ignorance of law.  In the complaint itself, the complainant has stated that he approached the advocate and his advocate issued notice to the opponent.  Copy of notice dated 19^th November, 2011 is produced on record by the complainant.  The complainant has produced another notice copy dated 9^th February, 2012 issued through his advocate.  It shows that the complainant sought advice from the advocate.  It was necessary for the advocate to give proper advice to file the complaint.  The present complaint is filed by the same advocate who issued abovesaid notices. Therefore, the ground of ignorance of law can not be accepted.  The learned advocate for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case Ashok Balaji Ratan –Versus- Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur reported in 2004(3) Mh L.J. 659.  In that case, there was delay in filing appeal. The Hon’ble High Court concluded that if the delay is not condoned the unauthorized construction will get condoned.  Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to condone the delay.   In the instant complaint before us, the complainant sought legal advice from his advocate.  It was necessary for the advocate to give proper advice. Therefore, he is not entitled for delay condonation as the complaint is filed five years after the cause of action.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The application filed by the complainant for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.
2. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed.
3. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
4. Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 5^th August, 2014