In a recent ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, established that no evidence can be accepted without a written statement filed within 45 days. Moreover, it was determined that parties can’t use previous judgments for their benefit if those judgments were pronounced after the original complaint was filed.
Here’s a simple breakdown of what happened:
The person who lodged the complaint had taken an insurance policy from Kotak Mahindra. Due to some issues, he approached the District Forum. The District Forum accepted his complaint and sent notices to Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance (the insurer). However, these notices were served beyond the statutory period of 45 days.
As a result, the District Forum did not consider the insurer’s written statement but instead moved the case forward for both parties to produce evidence. Displeased with this outcome, the complainant took his case to the State Commission. The State Commission overruled the District Forum’s order regarding the submission of evidence by both parties. It instructed the District Forum to advance with the case without accepting evidence after the 45-day filing period had expired.
Not happy with this, the insurer took the matter to the National Commission via a Revision Petition.
The insurer argued against the State Commission’s order. They stated that their local counsel had received the written version and filed it shortly after, but he couldn’t attend the proceedings due to commitments in another court. The insurer also mentioned a Supreme Court judgment that states consumer forums can accept replies beyond 45 days under certain conditions.
However, the commission found that the insurer was not entitled to the benefit of the later Supreme Court judgment. The commission agreed with the State Commission’s decision that without a timely written statement, the insurer should not be allowed to submit evidence. It would indirectly permit their late reply to be considered.
In conclusion, the commission upheld the State Commission’s order and dismissed the Revision Petition.
This ruling stresses the importance of filing written statements within the prescribed time limit and serves as a reminder that one can’t retrospectively rely on judgments pronounced after filing the original complaint.
The case was titled ‘Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Vs. Om Prakash Dubey,’ and the case number was R.P. No. 2140/2018.
