BALA DEVI vs Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd

REVISION petition no. 2958 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.05.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ( ''the State Commission '') in First Appeal no. 298 of 2011.

THE facts of the case as gleaned from the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar ( ''the District Forum '') are that the complaint has been filed by the petitioner with the averments that the husband of the petitioner Hawa Singh has purchased a life insurance policy from the respondent no. 1 - Met Life Insurance Company (in short, ''the insurance company '') through respondent no. 2 - Ajit Singh under plan MET GROWTH for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ - on 29.12.2008 and the petitioner being the nominee is legally entitled for the benefits qua the policy after death of her husband on 26.03.2009 who had expired due to sudden cardiac arrest (heart attack). It was averred that the petitioner as per the assurance submitted all the necessary documents to the insurance company for settlement of her claim but the claim was repudiated by the insurance company without any legal justification vide letter dated 24.11.2009. It was averred that the claim was rejected on false grounds of concealment of true state of health by the assured at the time of agreement and signing the proposal form and also that the insured was suffering from ''Pleural Effusion '' since 2007. It is averred that the repudiation is not legally justified and the petitioner has sought payment of Rs.1,20,000/ - along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The District Forum while allowing the complaint, "ordered the respondent no.1 - insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ - to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of life assured i.e., 26.03.2009 till its actual realisation along with Rs.2,000/ - as cost of litigation which the petitioner has to bear for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed ".

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission came to the conclusion that "the life assured had concealed material particular about his health. The life assured was suffering from ''Pleural Effusion '' disease before taking the policy. Thus life assured had certainly concealed material particular with respect to his health. Therefore, the life assured was stated to have given in correct history by concealing material particulars about this health and consequently secured the policy. The District Forum passed the impugned order by ignoring all these aspects and as such the impugned order being an illegal one cannot be sustained. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed ".

HENCE , the present revision petition. Along with the present revision petition an application for condonation of delay has been filed. In the application for condonation of delay the number of days of delay have not been mentioned. However, as per the office report, there is a delay of 352 days. The reasons given for the delay in the application for condonation of delay are as under: The petitioner is an illiterate and very poor lady. She was not aware that the unfounded impugned order can still be challenged through the revision petition before the National Commission. During summer vacations on 25.06.2013, the counsel noticed crying of the petitioner widow, outside the gate of the Supreme Court. When asked, she told about this case. Ultimately, she was told to meet with the case file next month after summer vacations. On 04.07.2013, the petitioner widow showed the concerned file records to the counsel, who after perusing the case file and seeing the merits, assured her to conduct her case, for no advocate fee, before this Commission against the erred judgment of the State Commission. So this is the day when it came to knowledge in reality to the petitioner that a revision could be filed before the Commission. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records. The only reasons given in the application for condonation of delay and also argued by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an illiterate and poor lady and was ignorant of the fact that she could file the revision petition before the National Commission till the counsel so advised her on 04.07.2013. He argued that the limitation should be counted from 04.07.2013 and not from the date of the impugned order, i.e., 28.05.2012.

THE petitioner have failed to give reasons for the day -to -day delay. The petitioner has failed to provide ''sufficient cause '' to condone the delay of 352 days. This view is further supported by the following authorities: The apex court in the case of In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that: "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras ".

In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held: "The party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005] ".

In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; "It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. "

Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that; "There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence. " In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed: "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition. "

ACCORDINGLY , we find that there is no ''sufficient cause '' to condone the delay of 352 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is without any merit as well as having no legal basis and is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petition being time barred by limitation and is dismissed with no order as to cost.