Life Insurance Corporation Of India And Others vs Sunita Kumari

We heard learned counsel for both sides, and perused the entire material on record.

The complaint was filed before the District Forum in the year 2013. The District Forum passed its Order in the year 2015. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed on limitation by the State Commission vide its Order dated 18.11.2015.

This revision petition has been filed by the revisionist insurance co. in the year 2016 against the said Order dated 18.11.2015 of the State Commission.

The District Forum vide its Order dated 04.05.2015 had allowed the complaint:

In view of the evidence discussed above and findings recorded above, this Forum is bound to conclude that the opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and has committed deficiency in service, due to which the complainant has suffered harassment, monetary loss and mental tension.

Relief: In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1 lac to the complainant with interest @9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e.01/11/2013 till the said amount is paid or realized. The opposite party is also directed to pay cost of complaint which we assess at Rs.5000/-. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules. The file after its due completion be consigned to records.

(extracts from the District Forum's Order dated 04.05.2015)

The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 18.11.2015 had dismissed the appeal on limitation:

In the application, it is stated that there is delay of hundred days in filing the appeal. Explanaiton offered is that though, the copy of order had been received on 15.06.2015, the appellant took legal opinion from the counsel, which was given on 01.07.2015. Thereafter, the Manager, Legal, recommended the filing of appeal to the Senior Divisional Manager, who further recommended the matter to the regional office and regional office forwarded the matter to the zonal office on 13.07.2015. Zonal Office is stated to have asked for viscera report on 20.08.2015, which was procured on 22.08.2015 and thereafter, zonal office accorded approval for filing the appeal on 07.09.2015.

It is the applicant's own case that copy of impugned order became available to it on 15.06.2015 and the Manager, Legal on 01.07.2015 recommended to Senior Divisional Manager that appeal may be filed. Divisional office, Regional office and zonal office took more than two months, i.e. from 01.07.2015 to 07.09.2015 to examine the matter and accord approval for filing appeal, though it was supposed to be known to all the three officers that limitation for filing the appeal is only thirty days, from the date of passing of order.

Explanation offered for the delay is unconvincing and does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence, application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal, i.e. F.A. No. 167/2015, being barred by time, is also dismissed. (extracts from State Commission's Order dated 18.11.2015)

The appeal before the State Commission was filed with self-admitted delay of 45 days. The State Commission's impugned Order states / determines the delay to be of 100 days.

The stated reasons for delay in filing the appeal, as mentioned in paras 2 to 7 of the application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission, were as below:

That after considering his opinion, the Manager (Legal) on 1.7.2015 recommended the case to the immediate superior for filing of appeal and the Senior Divisional Manager, vide is order dated 11.7.2015 recommended the filing of the appeal subject to the approval from the Regional Office.

That thereafter the matter was referred on 13.7.2015 to the Regional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Connaught Circus, New Delhi for giving its approval for filing the appeal.

That thereafter the Zonal Office of the appellant Insurance Company, sent a e-mail to the Divisional Office of the company at Shimla on 20.8.2015 stating that in absence of the viscera report and the Forensic Science Report, no decision can be taken until and unless the aforesaid document is procured.

That on 22.8.2015, the report of the Chemical Analysis was procured by the appellant. The Zonal Office of the appellant-Company on 7.9.2015 after going through the FSL report, came to the conclusion qua the filing of the appeal.

That the delay in filing of the appeal was due to the fact that the appellant was not in possession of the FSL report and after procuring the same, the decision qua filing of the appeal could be taken.

That there is a delay of 45 days in filing of the appeal and the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but has been caused due to the fact that the file has to move through various offices and queries were raised by the competent authority, who finally approves the filing of the appeal.

(paras 2,3, 4,5, 6 and 7 of the application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission)

The State Commission's Order dated 18.11.2015 is well-appraised and well-reasoned. We specifically note the appraisal made by the State Commission, quoted, verbatim, in para 5 above.

We find that the stated reasons for delay, as reproduced, in toto, in para 6 above, point towards managerial inefficiency and perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, they are illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission.

Sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission is not visible.

The Act 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes (Statement of Objects and Reasons). The normative ideal period for disposing of an appeal is 90 days (section 19A). The period of limitation to file appeal is 30 days (section 15). The appeal was filed before the State Commission with (further) self-admitted delay of 45 days / delay of 100 days as stated/determined by the State Commission.

On perusal of the entire material on record, including, inter alia, the complaint and the written statement, and without prejudging the case, and without in any manner entering into or critiquing the merits of the case, we, but, find, prima facie, allegations containing ingredients of 'deficiency in service' within the meaning of section 2 (1) (g) and (o) inherent in the matter.

In our considered view, the matter requires to be holistically adjudicated on merit, on the facts and the law.

In the interest of justice, and for holistic adjudication of the matter on merit, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay, but subject to just and appropriate cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid by the revisionist insurance co.- opposite party to the respondent - complainant through 'payee's a/c only' demand draft directly in her favour within four weeks from today.

It is made explicit that in case the condition attached with the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission, i.e. payment of Rs. 1 lakh by the insurance co. to the complainant within four weeks from today, is not complied with, the appeal before the State Commission will continue to stand as it stood, that is, continue to stand dismissed on limitation.

Both sides are directed to appear before the State Commission on 07.11.2019.

We note that the revisionist insurance co. is a public sector unit of the Government of India. Public time and monies are unnecessarily and unwarrantedly wasted in casual, anyhow, perfunctory conduct of litigation.

Let a copy of this Order be sent to the chief executive of the revisionist insurance co. with the remark that it may ensure that its cases are conducted professionally before the consumer protection fora.

A copy of this Order be sent to the State Commission by the Registry within seven days. 'Dasti', in addition, to both sides.