D.P. GOYAL v/s SR. BRANCH MANAGER, L.I.C. OF INDIA
The facts in brief are that the insured had taken a money back policy from the insurer for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- and in which Rs. 15000/- were to be paid as installments after every five years. It was contended by the insured that installment due in August 1996 was not paid to him under the policy in question. A complaint was filed in the district forum by the insured where the LIC registered the same on the ground that the complaint of insured was time barred. The district forum held the complaint to be barred by time and that there was nothing on record to show that in case of non payment of any installment and the insured was entitled to receive any interest at the time of maturity of the policy for period the installment was delayed.
In appeal by the insured the court observed, that section 24A of the Insurance Act laid down the scheme of non admission of the complaint.As per the provision of the section 24A of the act it has been provided that district forum, state commission or national commission shall not admit a complaint unless the same is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Sub section (2) of the same section provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in subsection (1), if the complainant satisfies the district forum, state commission or national commission as the case may be , that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. In the present case the cause of action arose in august 1996 when the installment due was not paid to the complainant and therefore the complaint should have been filed within 2 years from the above said date. Also no application for condonation of delay, as well was filed by the complaint showing sufficient cause for not filing the complaint as per sec. 24 A subsection (2). The complainant also contended that there was lot of exchange of telephonic conversation and oral assurance from the LIC due to which the time lapsed but the court rejected the same to be of any merit. The complainant also could not produce any document to shoe that the insured was entitled to any interest at the time of maturity of the policy on account of non payment of any instalment due but unpaid.

Held: The complaint of the insured was held to be time barred and therefore dismissed.