Jagnnath Prasad Mishra vs Regional Manager, Lic & Anr. on 14 March

law, world, legal


  • Petitioner’s wife Smt Savitri Devi took an insurance policy on 28.02.1997.
  • Savitri Devi expired on 27.01.2000
  • The petitioner hired Mr Rajesh Kumar, Advocate from Lucknow to claim the amount
  • The date of hearing was fixed for 27.02.2002 and as the petitioner was suffering from high fever, the petitioner could not be present on the said date.
  • The petitioner tried to ascertain about the judgment many times from his lawyer but in vain.
  • The petitioner was informed that the Presiding Officer has been transferred, hence, the judgment was not pronounced.
  • The lawyer filed the complaint in a wrong jurisdiction



  • Whether the respondent will be liable for giving the amount ?
  • Whether MR Rajesh Kumar can be held liable ?



  • No ordinary man/ woman can keep quiet till 14.08.2007, without making any effort and just waiting for his lawyer’s call knowingly that the judgment has been reserved for judgment on 27.02.2007. Hence, it is clear that the grounds given by the complainant are not true. The complainant is not successful to proof an authentic reason for the delay and it cannot be condoned.
  • The application under section 24 A, sub-section (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, is dismissed and the complaint is also dismissed as barred by limitation.


  • The petitioner was extremely negligent in pursuing his case and he has failed to adduce any valid and acceptable reasons to interfere with the order of the State Commission.
  • No jurisdictional or legal error has been shown by him to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act.
  • Thus, the present revision petition was dismissed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *