ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. In this complaint there are two complainants and the complaint relates to alleged deficiency of service in respect of six life insurance policies taken by one Anil Kumar Singh who died in road accident on 29.12.1988. Complainants say that they are nominees in those insurance policies. There are 21 opposite parties and they are officers of four different Insurance Companies namely the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the National Insurance Co. Ltd., the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The amount claimed in four policies is less 3.25 lakh and in two it is less than 12.60 lakh. All these policies have been clubbed to make a claim of over Rs. 20.00 lakh and thus to come within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Total claim made is over Rs. 40.00 lakh.
2. It is difficult to accept how one complaint could be filed in respect of different insurance policies taken at different times and in respect of different companies. Moreover, assuming the allegations to be correct the insured died in 1988 and this complaint filed on 31.10.2001 is barred by limitation. An application has been filed seeking condonation of delay but there is no sufficient cause mentioned as why there is delay of over 12 years. Rather the whole case seems to be embroiled in suspicious circumstances. It is alleged that on a complaint filed by the villagers that there was no person by the name Anil Kumar Singh and that all these insurance policies were fictitious and a case was registered by CBI, Patna branch which after investigating the case filed challan before the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patna in 1992 and which matter is still pending.
3. Then first complainant Krishna Singh alleged that in respect of 12 insurance policies taken by Anil Kumar Singh he filed proceedings before the District Forum Jehanabad in the years 1999 and 2000 and that relief was granted to him. He filed a judgment in one of these 12 complaints as annexure to this complaint. If we refer to that judgment there is the policy which was taken by Anil Kumar in 1983 for an amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh. Krishna Singh had succeeded in that complaint. Date of the judgment is not mentioned and it is not stated if Life Insurance Corporation of India who was opposite party party in that complaint filed any appeal before the State Commission or not. It is not clear, therefore, as to why Krishna Singh should have awaited for other set of Insurance policies of Anil Kumar Singh for him to file this complaint on 31.10.2001. In three of the six insurance policies subject matter of this complaint the nominee is the second complainant Master Pankaj Kumar, a minor son of Krishna Singh, first complainant, one policy is dated 16.1.1989 the date of which is after the death of Anil Kumar Singh i.e., 29.12.1988. Now in three of the policies of which Krishna Singh claims to be the nominees one is dated 28.2.1989 which is also after the date of death of Anil Kumar Singh and no date in two policies which are in the name of second complainant have been mentioned. These facts not only point to the complexity of the nature but also misuse of the process of this Commission. Be that as it may, since complaint is barred by limitation we dismiss the same.