A.P. Sahi, President

1. This review application (RA/13/2025) has been preferred praying that the final order dated 22.08.2024, disposing off the appeal only on the averments of IA/3031/2024 without entering into the merits of the appeal, is an error apparent on the face of record, and therefore the order dated 22.08.2026 deserves to be reviewed.

2. In order to appreciate the same, since there were some formal defects in the review application regarding the affidavit in support of the review application, orders had to be passed calling upon the applicant to file a better affidavit that has been filed in compliance of our directions which we shall refer to hereinafter. But before we do that, the facts that have led to the filing of this application need to be mentioned.

3. The appellant who is currently an American citizen at present residing in U.S.A., had claimed a permanent disability benefit from the Life Insurance Corporation against the Insurance policies held by him. The said benefits are available subject to the terms and conditions of the policies and in the instant case there were three policies against which the said claim had been made. The Life Insurance Corporation repudiated the claim vide letter dated 29.07.2010, which is extracted herein under:

                          "Ref: Claims/29.07.2010 To Dr. Thomas V. Thomas 309 Florence Ave Apt #N 508 Jenkin Town, USA PA 19046, Dear Doctor, Re: Your request for permanent disability benefit under Your policies no.s 761387575, 392675764,393046237 Your request for the benefit of extended permanent disability has been examined by us in detail, considering every aspect, before arriving at a finai decision. For your information we may detail below the facts that were considered in the process.

                          The Corporation grants disability benefit to policy holders who are totally and permanently disabled to the extent of the irrecoverable loss of the entire eyesight of both eyes, or the amputation of both hands above the wrists, or the amputation of both feet above the ankle, or the amputation of one hand and one foot as mentioned above. This is clearly specified in the 'Conditions and Privileges' of the policy bonds issued to you. It is also noted therein that the permanent disability should be due to the accident independently of all other causes and should arise within 180 days from the accident.

                          Whenever we receive a request for disability benefit an official of the Corporation personally visits the life assured to determine that his disability conforms (is consistent) with the Corporation's norms. The help of the Divisional Medical Referee is also sought to assess the degree of handicap and the benefit is granted only after the Corporation is fully satisfied that the life assured's situation warrants payment of such benefits.

                          As such observations could not be made on personal scrutiny in your case, we had to depend entirely on the treatment records submitted by you.

                          A study of the documents received here indicate the following:

                          1) In the year 2000, before proposing for insurance with us, you had undergone surgery for C2 to C7 laminectomy with fusion. You were suffering from neck pain, low back pain and elbow pain for which you were consulting Dr. Zhang. This information was not shown in your proposal for insurance.

                          2) You were already suffering cervical problems at the time of the accident, and the accident may have further complicated these problems, but your present disability cannot be seen as solely and independent of all other causes, the outcome of the accident.

                          3) You had a fall on23.11.2007 following which your pain of the neck and low back was exacerbated. You had no fracture or broken bones, but sustained contusions and lumbar sprain. However your condition cannot be classified as permanent disability to the extent specified by the Corporation.

                          4) Social Security Administration found you disabled from 28.05.2008, which is more than 180 days from the date of accident. Your problem with balancing was developed later, in September 2009.

                          The competent authority committee after deliberation of all the above facts has rejected your request for permanent disability benefit.

                          If you disagree with the above decision and feel that we have not considered any particular facts and circumstances in support of your claim. you may send your representation within a month for reconsideration of your claim to our Zonal Office at the following address:

                          The Zonal Manager LIC of India, Zonal Office Anna Road, P. B No. 2450 LIC Building, Chennai -600 002 Yours faithfully, Sd/-

                          Sr. Divisional Manager"

4. Aggrieved the claimant filed CC/37/2011 and the same was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 23.10.2013, holding that there was suppression of material facts and that there was no sufficient evidence to show that the disability claimed by the complainant was total and permanent and had been solely caused by the alleged fall.

5. Aggrieved the present appeal was filed questioning the correctness of the order of the State Commission Kerala and during the pendency of this Appeal the respondent Life Insurance Corporation moved IA/3031/2022 stating therein that all the three policies had matured and the maturity amount of all the three policies have been paid on 28.07.2014, 26.04.2016 and 19.11.2018, respectively, and therefore, since there was no liability pending, the appeal be disposed off. A copy of the said application had been served on the learned counsel for the appellant, but no reply was filed thereto. The said application was taken up along with the appeal on 22.08.2024 and in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant the appeal was dismissed on the ground that no reply had been filed to the said IA further observing that the appellant has been paid the maturity amount of all the three policies. The order dated 22.08.2024 is extracted herein under:

                          "Nobody appears for the Appellant.

                          Respondent has filed IA No. 3031/2024 for disposing of this appeal as the maturity amount of all the three policies issued to the appellant has been paid. In spite of time being granted, no reply has been filed in this IA. IA is allowed. Appeal is disposed of observing that the appellant has been paid maturity amount of all the three policies issued to him."

6. The review application was moved urging that the counsel for the appellant could not appear on account of connectivity issues and in the absence of effective representation the appeal was practically dismissed and therefore the order should be reviewed. This review application RA/13/2025 is dated 21.01.2025 and was filed by Mr. Lakshmanan T. J., learned counsel from Kerala, who had filed the appeal. A reply to the said review application has been filed along with an application (IA/9767/2025) seeking condonation of delay. The objections taken are that the review application has been filed belatedly, the explanation of the connectivity issue is not supported by any details and that the appeal was disposed off as the learned counsel failed to appear and more importantly did not file any reply to IA/3031/2022.

7. The review application was listed in chambers and on 17.02.2025, we passed the following order, issuing notice to the respondents to answer the review application:

                          "1. The application has been moved praying for restoration of this appeal on the ground that the Counsel Mr. T.J.Lakshmanan for the Appellant made an attempt to appear online but he failed to do so on account of some connectivity issue and accordingly the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution and for not having filed any reply to IA/3031/2022 filed on behalf of the Respondent Life Insurance Corporation.

                          2. It may be pointed out that IA/3031/2022 had been filed stating therein that the Corporation has already paid the maturity amount of the policies as admissible on the dates as reflected in the said IA. No reply was filed to the same in spite of the fact that the said application had been moved on 06.04.2022.

                          3. Admittedly, according to the review application, the case had gone unattended by the learned Counsel as he could not do so because of some connectivity issue. There are no details indicating as to what was the connectivity issue and even otherwise no date has been indicated as to when the learned Counsel came to know about the passing of the order on 22.08.2024.

                          4. There is also no indication as to what prevented the learned Counsel from approaching the commission thereafter or moving an application earlier as this application seems to have been moved on 21.01.2025. There no explanation as to why it took more than five months to file this application.

                          5. However in Paragraph 3 it has been stated that the issue involved in this appeal is not with regard to the payment of maturity amount but is a grievance with regard to the payment of disability benefits that were not extended and the request has been repudiated. The repudiation letter dated 29.07.2010 (page 107) is available on record.

                          6. Prima facie we find that the order on 22.08.2024 disposes of the appeal also on merits on the ground that no reply had been filed to the IA that states that the appellant has been paid the maturity amount. In our considered opinion, there is prima facie an error in the order dated 22.08.2024 by not referring to the issue raised in reference to the claim made before the State Commission and the challenge raised to the order of the State Commission on the issue of disability benefits.

                          7. We therefore issue notice to the Respondents calling upon them to answer this application by showing cause as to why the review application be allowed and the matter be reheard. The notice be made returnable by 26.05.2025."

8. As noted above the reply to the review had been filed after time was granted to the respondents on 26.05.2025 to which a rejoinder was also filed along with a delay condonation application (IA/11239/2025). Having perused the same we passed the following order on 12.09.2025:

                          "Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                          Having perused the Review Application and the reply filed by the LIC as well as the counter to the said reply filed on behalf of the appellant/applicant, appears that the affidavits on behalf of the appellant/applicant do not support the counter reply (rejoinder) filed by it.

                          Learned counsel for the LIC has raised objections that neither the Review Application nor the rejoinder can be maintained without a proper affidavit of the appellant/applicant because he is residing in the United States and there are no instructions or written authority to the said effect.

                          Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant prays for time to file a better affidavit keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, D-Ward, Kanpur and Anr. 1965 SCC OnLine SC 61, which provides that an opportunity to file a better affidavit should be granted.

                          List on 28.11.2025"

9. Ms. Marry Gills, advocate who appeared on behalf of the appellant sought time to file a better affidavit and on 23.01.2026 it was informed that the affidavit has been filed online that had been sworn by Mr. Lakshmanan T. J., advocate and therefore there is no effective compliance.

10. On 18.03.2026, it was informed that an application (IA/3221/2026) along with an affidavit has been filed and the learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation appeared online and accepted the notice of the said application accompanied by a an affidavit digitally signed by the complainant in Philadelphia, USA on 16.03.2026 that has been verified by a notary at Chandigarh. The same is also accompanied by a letter from the advocate of the complainant, Mr. Lakshmanan T. J. Copies of the same have been served on Ms. Jaya Tomar, learned counsel for the Insurance Corporation on 24.04.2026, when the following order was passed:

                          "Learned counsel for the LIC Advocate Jaya Tomar has appeared online and she states that the application can be argued without waiting for any reply from the respondent. The appellant has filed a better affidavit pursuant to the orders passed earlier which relates to a review application notice whereof has been taken in the order dated 12th September, 2025 by a Bench comprising of myself (Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. P. Sahi, President) and Hon'ble Bahratkumar Pandya, Member. Let the matter be listed before the said Bench on 07.05.2026."

11. This is how the matter has come up today for disposal of the objections to the review application and orders on the review application itself.

12. Before we consider the merits of the review application the objections taken to the delay in filing of the review application, the status of the affidavits filed to support the review application and the delay in the filing of the reply and the rejoinder needs to be resolved at the outset.

13. We find that the applications moved for condoning the delay for accepting the reply of the respondent and the application for condoning the delay for accepting the rejoinder to the same, namely, IA/9767/2025 and IA/11239//2025 both deserve to be allowed as in our opinion sufficient cause has been shown in both the applications for condoning the delay and accepting the same on record. Accordingly we allow both the applications and accept the reply of the respondent to the review application and the rejoinder thereto filed by the complainant on record.

14. Next comes the question of the objection taken by Ms. Jaya Tomar, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation that the affidavits are not in order either in support of the review application or any of the affidavits and the deficit has not been cured by filing a better affidavit.

15. In this regard we find that the appellant/ complainant is a person suffering from disabilities and is stationed in the United States. He has engaged counsel and that was being diligently pursued before this Commission where the appeal was being pressed, but unfortunately the counsel absented on 22.08.2024. The review application has been filed with some delay, but we find that the delay has been sufficiently explained by giving a probable cause of a connectivity issue that cannot be disbelieved and even otherwise the delay in filing of the review application deserves to be condoned as we find substance in the grounds taken in the review application which we shall deal with shortly hereinafter. Thus, the delay in filing of the review application deserves to be condoned as there is sufficient explanation and more so when there is merit in the review application. The Apex Court has recently made observations in some decisions, the aid whereof can be extended to the applicant in view of the law enunciated therein. Reference be had to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Satish Chand Shivhare & Bros. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2151. The aforesaid judgment was delivered in a case where the delay was being prayed to be condoned in a matter of arbitration where the State of UP had filed an appeal that was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The explanation given was the usual administrative rigmarole and then the Court considered the other judgments on the issue relating to sufficient cause to hold that it should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, provided there is no lack of bonafides.

16. It is undoubtedly true that the law of limitation has a harsh effect if applied strictly but at the same time, Courts and Tribunals should not ignore the explanation given. However, the Court further went on to observe that when a matter on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim, due to delay, then the delay deserves to be condoned. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:

                          "21. The questions of law purported to be raised in this Special Leave Petition are misconceived. The right of appeal is a statutory right, subject to the laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant.

                          22. When consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this case, the Petitioners failed to make out a strong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal approach does not mean that an appeal should be allowed even if the cause for delay shown is glimsy. The Court should not waive limitation for all practical purposes by condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning."

17. The Apex Court once again had the occasion to deal with a delay condonation application in a contest of land acquisition where the delay of around 479 days had been condoned in favour of the Union of India. The aggrieved persons came up to challenge the same and after consideration of the entire law on the subject, the Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531, analyzed the approach that has been explained in paragraphs 30 to 32 as follows:

                          "30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.

                          31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an "explanation" and an "excuse". An "explanation" is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an "explanation" from an "excuse".

                          Although people tend to see "explanation" and "excuse" as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.

                          32. An "excuse" is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an "excuse" would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication."

18. In our opinion, an excuse is to free oneself from some blame or seek pardon or any apology but as enunciated by the Apex Court, it can be a pretended reason, and therefore it should be distinguished carefully from a bonafide and genuine explanation. An explanation brings transparency or makes things look plain and simplified signifying truthfulness as against something bewildering or confusing. It tends to give a clear meaning to the underlying motive of the expression.

19. Subsequently, in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878 the Apex Court held that the length of delay may not be that material if the cause of delay is sufficiently explained. The observations of the Apex Court in paragraph 20 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

                          "20. Be that as it may. On account of liberty having been granted to the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, yet another O.A. No. 2066 of 2020 along with an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the impugned order came to be passed. No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned.

                          However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned."

20. Recently the Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh vs. State of M.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 600 has reiterated the opinion expressed in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (Supra).

21. Thus, the delay in the filing of the review application deserves to be condoned as it has substantial merit and we see no reason to reject the same on the ground of any delay in its filing. There is otherwise also no inordinate or deliberate delay so as to avoid extending discretion of condonation. The delay is therefore condoned and the review application shall be treated to have been filed in time.

22. We now come to the objection taken by the learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation regarding the affidavit being not appropriate and not being rectified by filing a better affidavit. In order to meet this appellant through his counsel Mr. Lakshmanan T. J. has moved IA/2331/2026 dated 16.03.2026, which has been filed on 19.03.2026. The affidavit in support of the said application has been signed by the appellant which is a digital signature on the left hand side of the page. The swearing has been carried out in an affidavit which has been verified on 16.03.2026. The same is notarised by a notary at Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the LIC had on 24.04.2026 made a statement that the application can be argued without waiting for any reply on behalf of the respondent and therefore we find that there is no counter filed to the said application. Ms. Jaya Tomar, learned counsel has however argued that the application and the affidavit are still incomplete and cannot be accepted on record as the application and the affidavit, even if digitally signed it has been notarised at Chandigarh and it ought to have arrived through a proper notary through the Indian Embassy as the appellant admittedly is residing in Philadelphia, USA. Technically the passage of a notary affidavit may have to come across such a procedure, but this is a summary jurisdiction, where strict rules in such circumstances where the appellant himself is a disabled person has attempted to support the review application along with his digitally signed application and affidavit. It is not the case of the Life Insurance Corporation that the signatures of the appellant on IA/3221/2026 are fake or the affidavit in support thereof does not bear the signature of the Complainant or some impostor has tendered it unauthorisedly. The only defect pointed out is of verification and its presentation. This being a summary jurisdiction and on the peculiar facts of this case we find that this objection raised on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation deserves to be rejected for the reason that the cause for review as pointed out in the review application seems to have genuine merit and there is nothing on record to indicate that the review application and the affidavits in support thereof have been manipulated or are not bonafide. We therefore accept the review application along with IA/3221/2026 on record treating them to have been sufficiently supported by a genuine affidavit.

23. We may now point out that given the background of the case the claim of the appellant is with regard to disability benefits that have been repudiated by the Life Insurance Corporation and the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed by the fora below. The issue therefore under challenge is regarding the benefits of the disability claim that has been raised in the appeal. It is in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order dated 22.08.2024 came to be passed considering the contents of IA/3031/2024 filed by the respondent- LIC informing that the maturity amount of all the three policies had already been paid during the pendency of the appeal.

24. In our considered opinion the mere payment of the maturity amount of the policies during the pendency of the appeal does not in any way dilute or eclipse or efface the challenge raised to the impugned order of the State Commission, which was with regard to a substantive claim of disability benefit. There was no dispute about the maturity amount. Thus, the payment of the maturity amount during the pendency of the appeal does not prejudice or takeaway the right of the appellant to press the cause of disability benefits which was the main issue to be considered in the appeal. The order dated 22.08.2024, nowhere refers to the said ground of challenge and simply disposes off the appeal on the basis of the payment of the maturity amount.

25. We find this to be an error apparent on the face of record, in as much as, had the appeal been dismissed only on the ground of want of prosecution in the absence of the counsel, the matter could have been viewed differently, but in the instant case the merits of the appeal have been found to be not tenable on the observation that the appellant has been paid the maturity amount. The satisfaction of the maturity amount does not erase the ground of challenge raised in the appeal. The information contained in IA//3031/2024 moved by the Life Insurance Corporation was therefore not sufficient to dispose off the appeal finally and terminate the proceedings. This is therefore a clear error apparent on the face of record and such an error can be corrected in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 22 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that would be applicable on the facts of the present controversy, in as much as, the complaint is of the year 2011 and the appeal was filed in the year 2014. The procedure therefore would apply, but even otherwise, the provisions of Section 60 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 empowers this Commission to review any of its orders if there is an error apparent on the face of record either as its own motion or on any application made by the parties.

26. As already indicated above, the period taken for filing the review application beyond 30 days has been condoned by us and we have further found that there is an error apparent on the face of record. We may gainfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Musammat Jamna Kuer Vs. Lal Bahadur & Ors., AIR 1950 FC 131. Applying the ratio thereof and other pronouncements that are available on the subject of review, we find that review application deserves to be allowed.

27. We accordingly allow RA/13/2025 along with IA/3221/2026 and recall our order dated 22.08.2024 and restore the appeal to its original number

28. The appeal shall now be listed for final hearing on merits afresh on 29.07.2026.