DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL) ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/ 38/2020
No. DF/Central/
Joginder Kaur Gill,
W/o Late Sh. Bhagat Singh Gill through
Sh. Rakesh Kumar Special Power of Attorney
Resident of A – 8A., Asha Park, New Delhi
.....COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. The Senior Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company
2. M/s. MD India Health Insurance, TPA, Private Limited,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Coram : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Shri R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
1. Rakesh Kumar has filed the instant complaint pleading therein that Smt. Joginder Kumar Gill resides with her son in the U.S.A. and the present complaint is filed through Shri Rakesh Kumar as special power of attorney holder. It is further pleaded that the late husband of Joginder Kaur Gill had taken a mediclaim policy with a cashless facility from United India Insurance Company (OP 1) vide policy bearing no. 040700/48/13/97/00003452 for the sum insured Rs. 2 Lacs for the period 28.02.2014 to 27.02.2015.
2. It is further stated that the husband of the complainant was hospitalized on 11.11.2014 and he expired on 05.12.2014. It is stated that OP 1 denied a cashless facility and the complainant had to pay the amount of the medical bill out of her pocket. She was reimbursed an amount of Rs. 653344/- from the office of the husband of the complainant.
It is further stated that after death of her husband she had left India along with her son and lodged the claim with OP 2 when she came to India. She has claimed Rs. 2 Lacs being insured amount as per policy, Rs. 1 Lac towards the mental harassment and Rs. 55,000/- towards litigation cost.
The case is at the admission stage.
3. Arguments addressed by Shri Rohit Arora learned counsel for complainant were heard.
4. Cause of action to file the instant complaint arose in December 2014. It was filed on 09.03.2020 which is clearly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed u/s 24 A of the CP Act 1986 (section 69 of the new Act 2019).
-
-
- In Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors, the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, upheld the order of the National Commission wherein the delay of 13 days was not condoned.
8. In N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy VII (1998) SLT 334 the Hon’ble Supreme court observed as under:
“ Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a lifespan
for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by
approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. An unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis lithium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.”
- In view of the reasons stated above the complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation. Copy of this order be sent as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this 5th day of October 2020.
