Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the impugned order dated 25.08.2014, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 5/2011, vide which, the said complaint against the respondent, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company for payment of the insured amount was dismissed on the ground that the deceased husband of the complainant had concealed material information about his health condition at the time of obtaining the insurance policy in question.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant Sunita Goyal stated in her consumer complaint No. 5/2011 that her late husband Jai Bhagwan obtained a life insurance policy from the Opposite party (OP) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited for a sum assured of Rs.50 lakh on 27.03.2007, for which the annual premium payable was Rs.1 lakh. A detailed medical examination was got conducted on the policy holder by the OPs, in which the insured was found to be IN a fit condition of health. Two real brothers of the deceased also obtained similar policies on the same date and underwent the requisite medical tests. The complainant was a nominee in the policy taken by her husband. The insured deposited the instalment of premium regularly till his death which took place on 30.03.2010. The complainant filed the insurance claim with the opposite party alongwith all requisite documents for release of the sum assured and payment of other due benefits by the OPs. After the exchange of some correspondence between the complainant and the insurance company, a repudiation letter dated 21.09.2010 was received by the complainant from the OP, in which it was stated that the deceased had history of diabetes mellitus (DM) since 15 years and was under hospitalisation/treatment for acute renal failure (ARF) since 2006. The OP insurance company stated that these facts, known to the deceased, had not been disclosed in the proposal form for taking the policy and hence, there was suppression of material information on the part of the deceased insured. The State Commission, after taking into account the averments made by both the parties, concluded that the OP Insurance Company were justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was suppression of material information and concealment of serious diseases by the insured at the time of taking the policy. The consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present first appeal.

3. There is a delay of 224 days in filing the present appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant, in which it is stated that the complainant is a resident of Jalandhar town in Punjab and that she could not visit Delhi because of her knee problem and hence, could not contact any counsel for filing the said appeal. She had to visit Chandigarh also to collect the necessary papers. The delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate, but it was due to the reasons beyond her control.

4. During arguments before us, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant had filed medical reports in support of her contention that she could not file the appeal in time, because of her health problems. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy” [VII (1998) SLT 334], saying that the primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The delay in filing the appeal should, therefore, be condoned. The learned counsel further stated that the husband of the appellant alongwith his two brothers had obtained the