BAJAJ ALLAINZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SOWBHAGYALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise out of a common impugned order passed by the AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 527 of 2010 and FA No. 363 of 2010. In the first, the appeal of the Complainant has been allowed and the OP/Insurance Company has been directed to pay Rs. 10,00,000 with 9% interest. In the second, the appeal of the OP against the order of the District Forum in which an award of Rs. 2,00,000 in favour of the Complainant was made, has been dismissed. Both revision petitions have been filed with delay of 69 days, which is sought to be explained in an application for condonation thereof. The application does not even mention the exact date on which the petitioner came to know about the passing of the impugned order. It may be stated that a copy was received in the second week of December. Apparently, some time was spent in movement of papers from the Zonal Office, Chandigarh and the Delhi Office of the revision petitioner, but no details are indicated. Even the following statements in the condonation application offer no help in determining either the duration or the cause for delay--

(2.) It is clear from the above that no conscious afford had been made to clearly explain the delay at various stages in the office of the petitioner/Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. We, therefore, reject the explanation and consider the revision petition liable for dismissal on account of limitation.

(3.) Coming to the merits, we find that the petitioner has challenged the common impugned order on several grounds most of which are only in the nature of reiteration of the contention that the petitioner has rightfully repudiated the claim on the ground of failure to disclose material particulars in the proposal form for insurance. This question has been considered at a great length by the State Commission with reference to the records. The State Commission has observed that: