Shri Arjun R. Rane Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Head Office : New India, Fort, Mumbai and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1111456
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided OnMay-04-2009
Case NumberFirst Appeal No.1582 of 2008 (In Consumer Complaint No.438 of 2006
JudgeShri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member
AppellantShri Arjun R. Rane
RespondentThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Head Office : New India, Fort, Mumbai and Another
Advocates:Mr. G.B. Pawar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Excerpt:
oral order: per shri s.r. khanzode, honble presiding judicial member this appeal arises out of order/award dated 15/11/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.438/2006 shri arjun r. rane v/s. the new india assurance co. ltd. by south mumbai district consumer forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘forum below in short). the appellant/org. complainant had filed consumer complaint in respect of two medi-claims rejected by the insurance company. one arises out of medi-claim policy no.111200/48/01/00730 and it was repudiated on 29/04/2002. another claim arises out of medi-claim policy no.111200/48/04/00223 and it was repudiated in the year 2005. while passing award, forum below rejected former claim on the ground of limitation and awarded second claim. feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred challenging the rejection of the first claim. we heard mr.g.b. pawar, advocate for the appellant. perused the papers. after giving anxious thought to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that there is clear mis-joinder of causes of action in the consumer complaint since both medi-claims arise out of different causes of action out of separate policies and they ought not to have been joined together. therefore, when the medi-claim is granted only for latter one, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. the former medi-claim which was repudiated by the insurance company on 29/04/2002 is clearly time-barred since consumer complaint was filed on 07/11/2006. referring to the paragraph 11 of the complaint where there is no clear statement as to the delay in filing consumer complaint as far as former medi-claim is concerned. there is vague statement that claim is time-barred and delay be condoned. according to learned counsel mr.pawar, cause of action accrued when the papers were returned in may 2006. this submission cannot be accepted because the cause of action arose not on returned of papers but on repudiation of the claim. therefore, we find this appeal is without any substance, hold accordingly and pass the following order :- order: 1. appeal stands dismissed in limine. 2. no order as to costs. 3. copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Judgment:

Oral Order:

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal arises out of order/award dated 15/11/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.438/2006 Shri Arjun R. Rane V/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by South Mumbai District Consumer Forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘Forum below in short).

The appellant/org. complainant had filed consumer complaint in respect of two medi-claims rejected by the Insurance Company. One arises out of medi-claim policy No.111200/48/01/00730 and it was repudiated on 29/04/2002. Another claim arises out of medi-claim policy No.111200/48/04/00223 and it was repudiated in the year 2005. While passing award, Forum below rejected former claim on the ground of limitation and awarded second claim. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred challenging the rejection of the first claim.

We heard Mr.G.B. Pawar, Advocate for the appellant.

Perused the papers.

After giving anxious thought to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that there is clear mis-joinder of causes of action in the consumer complaint since both medi-claims arise out of different causes of action out of separate policies and they ought not to have been joined together. Therefore, when the medi-claim is granted only for latter one, the impugned order cannot be faulted with.

The former medi-claim which was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 29/04/2002 is clearly time-barred since consumer complaint was filed on 07/11/2006. Referring to the paragraph 11 of the complaint where there is no clear statement as to the delay in filing consumer complaint as far as former medi-claim is concerned. There is vague statement that claim is time-barred and delay be condoned. According to Learned Counsel Mr.Pawar, cause of action accrued when the papers were returned in May 2006. This submission cannot be accepted because the cause of action arose not on returned of papers but on repudiation of the claim. Therefore, we find this appeal is without any substance, hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

Order:

1. Appeal stands dismissed in limine.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.