Gulshan Jain vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.07.2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission''). By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 13.09.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short, the District Forum''). By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the petitioner and directed payment of Rs.80,000/ - along with interest @ 9% per annum, Rs.5000/ - towards compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/ - towards cost.

I have heard the petitioner Mr. Gulshan Jain whose main point was that the appeal filed by him before the State Commission was not delayed. It is instructive to reproduce the relevant parts of the order of the State Commission: "The present appeal is directed against order dated 13.09.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon vide which the complainant was partly allowed a sum of Rs.80,000/ - was directed to be paid to the complainant holding the OPs to be deficient in not making payment under the medi claim policy. Complaint was filed inter alia with the two submissions that complainant took out a Medi Claim Insurance Hospitalisation Benefit Policy covering the period from 02.04.2008 to 01.04.2009 covering the complainant, Mrs. Shashi Jain and Punita Jain. Punita Jain was stated to have fallen seriously ill and admitted in hospital on OP no. 2 on 25.08.2008 and discharged on 28.08.2008. OP no. 2 charged Rs.1,61,475/ - which was paid. OP no. 1 had been approached for pre -authorisation of cashless facility which was declined. The claim being lodged and not been paid, complaint was filed. Notice being issued, opposite parties contested. Opposite party no. 1 raised the plea under the terms of policy the amount payable was only Rs.67,000/ - under different heads opposite party no.2 admitted admission of Punit Jain on 25.08.2008 and her discharge on 28.08.2008 after treatment and the amount being charged for cardiology procedure and further and the detail of package were submitted to the complainant. Parties led evidence. After hearing the parties District Forum allowed Rs.80,000/ - by referring different clauses of the agreement along with interest @ 9% besides Rs.5000/ - as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/ - towards litigation. Aggrieved thereby complainant has come up in appeal. Appeal received by post. Though no date has been put on the grounds of appeal, however, in the index the date of appeal has been mentioned as 04.10.2010. The appeal appears to have been ante dated as it was received by post on 24.05.2011. In the paper book of complaint, complainant has annexed copy of an application purported to have been sent to Hon''ble National Commission seeking transfer of this appeal to any other commission giving reference of some other appeal. An order dated 19.04.2011 passed by Hon''ble National Commission on the said application was sent by appellant showing disregard to the order of the Hon''ble National Commission by making reference that the order dated 19.04.2011 of Hon''ble National Commission were being forwarded under protest to this Commission. The order under challenge is dated 13.09.2010 while appeal was received by post on 24.05.2011. As per office report there is a delay of 205 days in filing the appeal. Neither there is any request seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal nor any justifiable reasons has been mentioned in the grounds of appeal justifying the delay. Learned District Forum while partly allowing the complaint has referred to specific clauses of the contract of the insurance. Complainant/appellant has sought enhancement of compensation. There is not even a word in the entire grounds appeal that either the judgment of District Forum was received ate or that there was some justifiable reasons in seeking condonation of delay. It is well settled principle of law that the prayer made on behalf of the appellant for condonation of delay should not be taken lightly. It is well settled that each and every day''s delay has to be explained while seeking condonation of delay. The observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass v s Financial Commissioner and Others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 are as under: "Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task -master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case -law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay". The ratio of the case (supra) fully applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We feel that the appellant has failed to establish "sufficient cause" to condone the delay. Admittedly, it is a case where the appellant has acted in a most lethargic manner, which is unwarranted and uncalled. We are, therefore, left with no other alternative, but to dismiss the appeal being barred by time. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that the appeal being put up for first hearing and number of cases having come up before the bench of appellant details were sought from the office regarding the number of cases filed by Shri Tara Chand Jain either in his individual capacity or as attorney of other persons. The office has furnished the detail of cases already decided and pending, which has been filed by Shri Tara Chand Jain either in his individual capacity or as attorney. The details is reproduced below: OFFICE REPORT The following case of Gulshan Jain/ Tara Chand Jain decided: DECIDED ON 1. A/03/369HVPN vs Gulshan Jain 01.12.2010 2. A/03/2280 GulshanJain vs Modi INDS 22.08.2010 Rs. 3.A/06/2626 T.C. Jain vs BSNL 23.01.2009 GulshanJain vs Vaish 4. A/08/293 13.08.2008 Samaj GulshanJain vs Deptt. of 5. A/07/549 16.09.2009 Telecom 6. A/07/2338 GulshanJain vs DHBVNL 01.08.2008 The following cases Pending for dates 1. A/07/1184 GulshanJain HVPN 23.08.2011 2. A/07/2337 GulshanJain HVPN 21.09.2011 3.A/11/06 Tara Chand Jain ManglaAgencies28.07.2011 4. A/11/35 GulshanJain NIC05.07.2011 5. A/11/719GulshanJain NIC05.07.2011 6. TA/10/718 GulshanJain NIC18.08.2011 ShriTara Chand Jain appears to be a habitual litigant. Perusal of the grounds of appeal shows that the language used in the grounds of appeal is more of accusing the District Forum rather than justifying his case. The non -filing of application of condonation of delay by a person who is habitual litigant could not be due to ignorance. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed".

THE order of the State Commission itself clarifies how the appeal was delayed. It also gives the background of the case and the past antecedents and conduct of the petitioner.

IN view of this, I have no hesitation in dismissing this revision petition as totally misconceived.