ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. It is the complainant who is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution.
2. The complaint arose out of Overseas Mediclaim Policy taken by the mother of Amrit Pal Singh, complainant, who unfortunately died in Toronto, Canada. Amrit Pal Singh was the nominee under the policy. His father Iqbal Singh also obtained similar policy where also Amrit Pal Singh was the nominee. Iqbal Singh also impleaded as complainant No. 2 being special attorney of Amrit Pal Singh. Both the parties then proceeded to Canada. As a nominee of his mother in the policy, Amrit Pal Singh filed the complaint. He made his father second complainant and appointed him as his special attorney. It was not necessary at an for Iqbal Singh to be made a co-complainant. Deceased mother of Amrit Pal Singh had taken the policy on 1.7.1999. After reaching Toronto she was admitted to a hospital there on 8.8.1999 and breathed her last on 12.8.1999. Insurance claim under the policy was denied by the respondent insurance company on the ground that the deceased had a pre-existing ailment. Amrit Pal Singh raised a total claim of $ 12086.32 which included hospital bills and Doctor’s attendance fees.
3. Complaint was filed in the Delhi State Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the insurance company. It is not necessary to examine further proceedings except to note that written version by the insurance company was filed on 13.12.2002. Four weeks time was granted to the complainant to file rejoinder and also affidavit by means of evidence. Thereafter, insurance company was directed to file evidence by means of affidavit and the complaint was adjourned to be listed on 29.8.2003. Long date had been given due to huge pendency of matters in the State Commission there being only one Bench hearing the complaints on the original side and also appeals from District Forums spread over the Delhi State.
4. When the matter was taken up on 29.8.2003, an order was passed dismissing the complaint for non prosecution. This order is reproduced hereunder:
“Only rejoinder on behalf of the complainants has been filed. No affidavit by way of evidence on behalf of the complainants has been filed though a period of more than eight months has passed. The explanation being offered for the above default on the part of the complainants is far from satisfactory. In the presence of the above facts, the above mentioned complaint, filed by the complainants, is dismissed on grounds of non-prosecution.”
5. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed against that order. It is submission of learned counsel for the appellants that affidavit could not be filed as affidavits had to be obtained from the Doctor in Canada. Nothing has been said as to when the Doctor was approached and what was his response as in between the last date and the date on which the impugned order was made 8 months had gone by.
6. The complaint before the State Commission is to be decided within a set time frame. There is impression in the minds of general public that adjournments are granted as a matter of course in Civil Courts in spite of stringent provisions and the cases drag on for years. We do not want the Consumer Forums to act like Civil Courts. At this stage, we may refer to Rule 9 of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 prescribing number of days for deciding the claim :
“(9) While proceeding under Sub-rule (8), the District Forum may, on such terms as it may think fit and at any stage adjourn the hearing of the complaint but not more than one adjournment shall ordinarily be given and the complaint should be decided, as far as possible, within 90 days from the day of notice received by the opposite party, where complaint does not require analysis or testing of the goods, and within 150 days, where it requires analysis or testing of goods.”
7. In view of this, we may not like to interfere in the order of the State Commission and dismiss the appeal. However, complainant shall certainly be entitled to seek exclusion of time spent in the State Commission as well as in the National Commission if they choose to file a Civil Suit in view of the decision taken by Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering works v. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.