RAMESH CHANDRA PUROHIT Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition filed by Shri Ramesh Chandra Purohit S/o. Late Mahabir Prasad Purohit of 3, Kundan By -lane, P.O. Liluah, Dist. Howrah, against the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Hoogly, on 30.6.2003 in C.D.F. Case No. 104/03 dismissing the complaint during admission hearing due to delay. Being aggrieved by that order of the learned District Consumer Forum, the petitioner has come up with a prayer before this Commission to set aside the order of the said Forum dated 30.6.2003 and also for compensation and cost.

(2.) THE case, in short, is that late Mahabir Prasad Purohit took a Mediclaim cover for the period from 27.1.1997 to 26.1.1998. Thereafter the Policy was renewed from year -to -year. The late Mahabir Prasad Purohit held his last Policy No. 4851250305113 which was valid from 27.1.2000 to 26.1.2001 by way of renewal. During the continuance of the Policy, the insured had undergone medical treatment advised by his attending physician at Anandalok Hospital at 67, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Kolkata -25 and at Health Care and Research Centre of 21, Pranonath Pandit Street, Kolkata -25 respectively from 28.6.2000 to 24.7.2000. He had incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 1,17,478.35 and submitted a claim to the O.P., New India Assurance Co. Ltd., on 11.8.2000 for reimbursement. But the O.P. repudiated the claim through their letter dated 30.3.2001 on the ground of suppression of material fact relating to his health condition at the time of taking up the policy. Mahabir Prasad Purohit expired on 6.5.2001 and, therefore, his son, Shri Ramesh Ch. Purohit being the eldest son of the family filed a case with the District Consumer Forum, Hoogly on 18.6.2003 under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the O.P. Insurance Company.

(3.) THERE was a total delay of two months in filing the complaint with the District Forum. The complaint was accompanied with a condonation petition under Section 24 -A of the C.P. Act, 1986 duly supported by affidavit and medical certificate. However, the learned District Consumer Forum after hearing the petition and both the parties was pleased to disallow the petition for condonation of delay on the ground of limitation by its Order dated 30.6.2003.