SUNITA vs The Managing Director, Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5.2.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 67 of 2013 - Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sunita by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner''s husband Suresh Kumar died in a road accident on 1.6.2008 and claimed Rs.1,00,000/ - from OPs under Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojna. As claim was not paid, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 & 2/Respondent No. 1 & 2, resisted complaint and submitted that complainant has not complied with condition of policy and has not submitted claim within time and further submitted that deceased was under an influence of liquor at the time of accident which is against the terms and conditions of the policy; hence, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 3/Respondent No. 3 resisted complaint and submitted that claim papers received from SDM/Nodal Officer were forwarded to OP No. 1 & 2 after completion of formalities and they are not liable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though claim was payable, learned District forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 & 2 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petitioner be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 supported petitioner.

IT is admitted case of the petitioner that death of her husband occurred on 1.6.2006 in road accident. It is also not disputed that OP No. 3 remitted claim papers to OP No. 1 & 2 on 14.8.2009 after more than 14 months of death and complaint was filed on 4.10.2011 after 2 years and 4 months. Condition No. 1 of the policy runs as under: "Upon the happening of any event which may give rise to a claim under this Policy, written notice with full particulars must be given to the Company immediately. Unless reasonable cause is shown, the Insured Person/Nominee should within one calendar month after the event, which may give rise to a claim under the policy, give written notice to the Company with full particulars of the claim".

As per this condition, complainant was under an obligation to give intimation of the death of her husband to OP No. 1&2 immediately and further was under an obligation to submit claim with full particulars within a period of one month but as claim papers were sent after 14 months, but as claim papers were sent after 14 months, which is clear violation of the terms & conditions of policy and in such circumstances, complainant was not entitled to any claim. Not only this, complainant filed complaint on 4.10.2011 meaning thereby, after 2 years 4 months of the cause of action and as per Section 24A of the C.P. Act, complaint must have been filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. Learned State Commission rightly dismissed complaint as barred by limitation on the basis of law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes - : 2011 CTJ I (SC) CP and I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.