1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 13.01.2016 passed in F.A. No. 287 of 2015 by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby first appeal No. 287 of 2015 has been dismissed being barred by limitation.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that Mr. Satbir Singh, since deceased, (hereinafter referred as ‘the insured’) on 26.11.2010 was insured by Max New York Life Insurance Company Ltd./OP for Rs.8,48,720/-.  On 7.1.2011, he suffered chest pain, breathlessness and died on the same day.  The complainants No. 1 and 2, son and daughter of the deceased, filed insurance claim papers with the OP alongwith the necessary documents, but the claim was repudiated on the ground that late Mr. Satbir Singh, had concealed about his ill health before submitting proposal form.  The deceased life assured had never disclosed to the OP that he was a known case of Renal Cell Carcinoma and under treatment.  Thus, OP had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Therefore, the complainants have filed a complaint before the District  Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (in short, ‘the District Forum’).

3.       Considering the pleadings and evidence, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the complaint and directed the Petitioner/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.8,48,720/- i.e. the sum assured under the policy to the Complainants, in three equal shares within one month from the date of passing of the said order failing which the said amount would carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of the order till its realisation.

4.       Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP filed first appeal before Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’).  The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 146 days.  Hence, the OP filed the instant revision petition. 

5.       Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.  Learned counsel for OP submitted that the State Commission vide order dated 13.1.2016 dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal was dismissed.  I have perused the evidence and material on record.  In my view, this matter needs meritorious consideration.  The State Commission without discussing merit dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.  The State Commission observed as below:

“3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that impugned order came to it’s notice on 14.1.2015 when the execution notice was received, so the delay be condoned.

4.  This argument is of no avail.  From the perusal of impugned order dated 12.09.2014, it is clear that appellant/OP was represented by counsel.  His presence is marked in impunged order dated 12.09.2014, so it cannot be presumed that appellant came to know about the impugned order on 14.01.2015 when notice in execution proceedings was received.  There is no plausible explanation about the delay and the version introduced by appellant seems to be after thought.

6.       It is also pertinent to note that the instant revision petition has been filed after the delay of 57 days.  The petitioner explained that the delay was due to late receipt the documents and instructions from the complainant.

7.       Considering the facts of the case, the delay in filing the first appeal before the State Commission and the revision petition before this Commission is hereby condoned, subject to the cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  Both the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 24.10.2017 for further proceedings.  It is made clear that the State Commission shall hear the matter only after its satisfaction that the cost of Rs.25,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner to the complainant, otherwise the appeal stands automatically dismissed.

8.       The revision petition is disposed of with above terms.

9.       Copies of this order be sent to the both the parties and their respective counsel.