Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/482

Anita Bahal - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Jasbir Singh

23 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 482 dated 20.10.2023.                         

                             Date of decision: 23.10.2023.

 

Anita Behal widow of Shri Amarjit Singh Behal, r/o House No.22-A, Model House, Ludhiana-141002. M.98728-95016.                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant 

 

1. National Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office at 3, Middleton Street, Post Box No.9329, Kolkata 700071 through its General Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.1, Link Road, Atam Park, Ludhiana, through its Divisional Manager-141002.

                                                                                      …..Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Jasbir Singh, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by raising a consumer dispute with regard to non-payment of accidental death insurance claim qua his husband namely Sh.Amarjit Singh Behal lodged with the OPs. It has been averred in the complaint that Shri Amarjit Singh Behal, husband of complainant obtained personal accidental insurance policy No.401300/42/15/8100000295 valid from 13.03.2016 to 12.03.2017 for Rs.5 lacs for himself and his wife Anita Behal(complainant) for covering the risk of personal as well as medical weekly expenses. On 10.01.2017, Shri.Amarjit Singh Behal, husband of complainant was going from Ludhiana to Delhi by car bearing No.HR-06-AA-0080 along with other occupants and the said car met with an accident at Shahbad, Haryana, for which, FIR No.20 dated 30.03.2017 u/s 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC was registered. Sh.Amarjit Singh Behal and all the other occupants of the car received multiple and grievous injuries and they were immediately taken to the Civil Hospital, Shahbad, from where Sh.Amarjit Singh Behal, husband of complainant referred to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. However, due to critical injuries and due to other multiple health problems, husband of complainant died during treatment. Intimation was sent to the OPs and claim was also lodged with the OPs along with documents but they lingered the matter on one false excuse or the other. The complainant and her family members spent more than Rs.12 lacs on the medical treatment. Despite repeated visits and sending letters from time to time with the request to pay the claim, Ops did not settle the claim and kept raising the unnecessary queries and sent the letter dated 27.08.2021 to the complainant on flimsy and false grounds. Delay in settling the claim and non-payment of the claim is claimed to be illegal, arbitrary and malafide. Hence by filing the present complaint, the complainant has prayed for issuance of directions to the OPs for payment of sum of Rs.15 lacs as the amount spent on medical treatment along with interest @24%  and compensation of Rs.2 lac and litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-. The complaint is supported with affidavit of complainant along with the annexed documents. 

2.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant on the point of admissibility of the complaint and gone through the record.

3.                Counsel for the complainant has reiterated the version of the complaint in his arguments and further contended that on account of non-settling of claim qua the medical expenses incurred upon the treatment of Sh.Amarjit Singh Behal, the complainant and his family members have suffered mental tension, agony, for which, they are entitled for the compensation along the relief as prayed for. He has prayed for admissibility of the complaint at the preliminary stage.

4.                Before admitting of the complaint at preliminary stage, this Commission is also required to examine as to whether the complaint is within time or not.

5.                Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides as under:-

“Limitation Period:- (1)The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section(1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period;

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

 

6.                Perusal of the complaint and annexed documents shows that the document Ex.C26 annexed with the complaint is dated 27.08.2021 and the same was issued by Assistant Div.Manager of OPs to the complainant regarding raising a query qua personal accidental claim of Mr.Amarjit Singh Behal. The operative part of the same is reproduced as under:-

“Keeping in view of above said points, please advise us why your claim demanding bed rest should not be repudiated and close the file as no claim. You are requested to submit your reply within seven days from the issuance of this letter for enabling us to process your claim file or close the file as no claim without any further notice.”

Perusal of the documents shows that no document has been placed on record regarding sending reply to the aforesaid letter by the complainant giving answer to the queries raised by the Ops and it seems that the claim file of the complainant was closed as no claim. Since the letter dated 27.08.2021 was sent by the Ops to the complainant and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 20.10.2023 i.e. after the expiry of period of limitation. No sufficient reasons have been shown in the complaint for non-filing of the same within the period of limitation nor any application for condonation of delay has been moved.

7.                A reference can be made to the case law titled as SBI versus B.S.Agriculture Industries(I) Civil Appeal No.2067 of 2002 decided on 20.03.2009 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has  made the following observations:-

“(t)he expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24-A[now, S.69(1) in the new CP Act, 2019] is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed there under.”

It has been further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that “(i)if the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum (Commission) decides the complaint on merits, the forum (Commission) would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

 

8.                Consequently, the present complaint is time barred and we do not inclined to proceed with the same and hence the same is hereby dismissed summarily at the admission stage itself. Copy of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room, but after registering the same.

(Monika Bhagat)               (Jaswinder Singh)      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                      President      

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:23.10.2023

Gurpreet Sharma