news details |
|
|
| Consumer Commission dismisses application | | ‘Directs Insurance Co. to pay Rs.4000 to non applicant’ | | Jammu Mar 29
Dismissing the application of United Insurance Company seeking condonation of 28 days delay for filing an appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice G D Sharma and Khalid Hussain Member, has directed the Company to pay Rs.4000 to Payara Lal Saraf of Gandhi Nagar, the non applicant/ respondent.
The Insurance Company had filed an appeal against the Divisional Forum award of Rs.1, 54,828 granted along with interest of 6 per cent per annum to the non applicant Payara Lal Saraf, who was insured under the medi- claim of the insurance policy.
Advocate AK Misri appearing for the respondent/ non applicant, contented that there is no merit in this appeal which has been filed with a malafide intention to deprive the non application to receive the medi- claim of the insurance policy in question which covered the ailment and the impugned order of the Divisional Forum is reasoned one and it does suffer from any legal infirmity. He maintained that the object of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act are to provide speedy justice to bonafide consumers without observing the legal technicalities are opposed to the principals of natural justice.
After hearing arguments on both the sides and perusing the record, Justice Sharma observed that the Group Insurance Policy ‘Nagrik Suraksha Policy’, covered the personal accident and hospitalization of the non applicant/ respondent and his wife and it was in force continuously for a period of 12 months from the inception of the present mediclaim policy. There is not even a shred of evidence produced by the applicant that the BHP disease diagnosed and treated by the doctors was in the knowledge of the non applicant/ respondent.
Citing several jugdements, Justice Sharma observed that condonation of delay is in the discretion of the court and acceptability of explanation for the delay is the sole criterion, length of delay not relevant and maintained that the facts of the case depict that a deliberate attempt is being made to deprive the non application to reap the benefits of litigation.
Justice Sharma further observed that sufficient cause does not exist in this case for condoning the delay because the appeal seems to be merit less and the sole aim and object to file it herein appears to prolong the proceedings and thereby stall the payment of the genuine claim in respect of the policy in question and such dismissed the application with cost of Rs.4000 payable by the applicant/appellant to the non-applicant/respondent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
