Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rajni Bai & Anr

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member

Heard Ms. Shweta Singh Parihar, Advocate for the petitioner.

This revision petition has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh dated 30.11.2019 dismissing the FA/19/629/2019 as time barred and rejecting delay condonation application, on the finding that there is no sufficient ground for condoning the inordinate delay of 489 days.

Rajni Bai widow of Premsahai Singh filed Consumer Complaint No.17 of 2018 on 16.01.2018 for directing Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (the petitioner) to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as her claim under Life Insurance Policy of her husband late Premsahai Singh and Rs.50,000/- for the financial loss Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. It has been stated that late Premsahai Singh had a Kisan Credit Card from Rajya Gramin Bank, Mahavirpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Through the bank, he obtained life insurance policy i.e. Policy No.0278064406, Master policy No.0242114703, which was for a period of 5 years and risk coverage was of Rs.1,50,000//-, from Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. Branch, Ambedkar Chowk, Manendergarh Road, Ambikapur Sarguja on 11.08.2012. Yearly instalment premium has to be deposited of the aforesaid policy. At the time of initial policy on 11.08.2012, Rs.3000/- was deposited, thereafter the yearly premium of Rs.3,000/- was regularly deposited on 11.08.2013, 11.08.2014 and 11.08.2015. The next instalment was due on 11.08.2016. In the meantime, Premsahai Singh died on 05.05.2016. The complainant submitted her claim before the Insurance Company on which an inquiry was conducted on 23.12.2016, But later on, instead of giving full claim under the policy, a full and final settlement for Rs.8573/- was done and the said amount was transferred in the account of the husband of the petitioner on 27.07.2017. It has been stated that under the life insurance policy, the full amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was payable, but the part of the amount was only paid as such there was deficiency in service.

The complaint was filed on 16.01.2018. The notice was issued to the opposite parties fixing 15.02.2018. In spite of service of notice, none of the opposite parties appeared before the District Forum as such District Forum by order dated 15.02.2018 proceeded ex-parte against the opposite parties. The complainant filed her affidavit of evidence in support of the complaint. The District Forum by order dated 28.03.2018 found that the allegation made in the complaint had been proved, accordingly Insurance Company (the petitioner) was directed to pay Rs.1,41,427/- within 45 days along with interest @ 7% p.a. from 16.01.2018 and Rs.25000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for cost of the litigation.

The petitioner challenged aforesaid order, in FA/19/629 of 2019 on 29.08.2019. The office has reported that there was delay of 489 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit of one Mr.Balram Kumar Patwa. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that on the notice of the complaint being served, the Insurance Company instructed and engaged an Advocate to contest the complaint. However, the Advocate did not mark the appearance before the District Forum nor, communicated anything to the Insurance Company about the proceeding/order passed by the District Forum, due to which ex-parte order was passed on 28.03.2018. It is only when the complainant visited the branch office of the Insurance Company for compliance of the order dated 28.03.2018, then the officers came to know about it. Then they immediately applied for the certified copy of the order dated 28.03.2018 and on receiving the certified copy of the order, they engaged a counsel before the State Commission for filing the appeal. The draft was prepared and sent for approval on 29.07.2019 and after approval it was filed on 29.08.2019 as such, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. State Commission, by the impugned order found that the date of applying certified copy of the order of District Forum and date of receiving of it has not been mentioned in the application and affidavit for condonation of delay. The relevant places for these dates were left blank in the application as such no cause has been shown for condonation of inordinate delay of 489 days. On these findings, delay condonation application was rejected and the appeal was dismissed as time barred. Hence this revision has been filed.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the insured had not deposited the yearly premium, in the year 2014 as such payment made in the year 2015 was adjusted towards the dues of 2014 and premium of 2015 remain unpaid. On the date of death, the policy had lapsed.

I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. This argument is not liable to be accepted in as much as the insurer has not repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy had lapsed rather the claim was settled for lesser amount. It is well settled that the authorities cannot take any other ground in court which was not considered while passing the impugned order. In Galoda Power and Telecommunication Ltd. Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd., (2016) 14 SCC 161, Supreme Court has held that the ground other than the ground given for repudiation of the claim cannot be permitted to be raised by the insurer in the Court.

The State Commission by the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 found that in the application for condonation of delay, date of knowledge of the impugned order, date for applying for issue of the certified copy of the impugned order and date for receiving of the certified copy of the impugned order were left blank as such, no cause has been shown for condoning inordinate delay of 489 days. A copy of delay application as filed before the State Commission has been annexed as Annexure P-7 to this revision in which the date of knowledge of the impugned order, date of applying for certified copy of the impugned order as well as date of issue of certified copy of the impugned order have been left blank. These facts were pleaded for condonation of delay. In the absence of the dates, delay in filing the appeal was not explained at all. The finding of State Commission in this respect does not suffer from any illegality.

Photostat copy of certified copy of order dated 28.03.2018 has been filed along with the revision. On page 30 of the paper book of the revision, the last page of order dated 28.03.2018, bears seal containing the dates of filing of application for issue of certified copy, the certified copy being ready and issued. All the three dates are 28.03.2018. From which it is proved that the application for certified copy was moved on 28.03.2018, which was issued on the same date i.e. 28.03.2018. As such, allegation that the revisionist had no knowledge about the order dated 28.03.2018 prior to the date when the complainant approached the branch office for compliance of the order dated 28.03.2018 is false. On the false allegation, the delay cannot be condoned. Otherwise also the claim under the life insurance policy has not been repudiated rather, it has been accepted and full and final payment of Rs.8573/- was done. There was no reason for not paying full amount of Rs.1,50,000/- of the policy. Thus, there was deficiency in service. Impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality.

ORDER

The revision has no merit and it is dismissed.