IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.---This is an appeal under section 124(2) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, arising out of the judgment, passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore, on 31- 3-2008, whereby, the application of present appellant Mst. Inayat Begum, for recovery of death claim along with liquidated damages, was dismissed being barred by time.
2. Nasir Hussain, son of the appellant, purchased two insurance policies during his life time on 1-7- 2001 and 1-12-2002, respectively. He reportedly died on 9-7-2003. After his death, the claim by the appellant was filed on 17-6-2004 with respect to both the above noted policies, which was not accepted by the Insurance Corporation and it was held to have been repudiated.
3. The Insurance Tribunal was established on 20-6-2006. At the relevant time, there was no specific remedy available to the aggrieved legal heir of deceased insured and, therefore, a complaint was filed by the appellant before the Federal Ombudsman, which was declined on 1-12-2005. Writ Petition No, 6735 of 2005, calling in question, such findings was dismissed by this Court on 27-4- 2005. From the refusal on the part of the Federal Ombudsman, a representation was also filed before the President of Pakistan, which was also dismissed on 25-2-2006. In the meanwhile, as noted hereinabove, the Insurance Tribunals were established under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, w,e,f, 20-6-2006 and, therefore, an application under section 118 of the. Insurance Ordinance, 2000, was filed by the appellant on 31-7-2006.
4. In addition to other issues, the learned Tribunal also proceeded to frame Issue No,1 touching the limitation for filing any application seeking death claim along with liquidated damages in view of Article 86(a) of the Limitation Act, 1908.
5. Although the Insurance Corporation has contested the plea of the appellant on merits also, but for the reason that before the Tribunal, no evidence, except one R.W.1 was produced, who even was not an Inquiry Officer on behalf of the Insurance Corporation on the basis of which, the policies of the deceased insured were refused to be encashed in favour of the appellant. Even though the witnesses, stated to have been appeared before the Inquiry Officer, did not appear before the Tribunal in witness box. No evidence showing the ailment of the deceased insured at the time of obtaining the policies was made part of the record; only on the basis of general observations that the Insurance Corporation had sufficient material with it justifying the bad health of the deceased insured at the time of purchase of policies, the claim of the appellant was refused.
6. Even the appellant was hit on the point of limitation on the basis of wrong interpretation of Article 86(a) of the Limitation Act, 1908. For ready reference, Article 86(a) of the Limitation Act, 1908, is reproduced hereinbelow:-- Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run 86(a). On a policy of insurance when the sum insured is payable after proof of the death has been given to or received by the insurers.{Three Years] [(a). The date of the death of the deceased The careful reading of the above provision of law reveals that the period of three years notwithstanding the entries made in Column No,3 of such Article would start from the point of time, when the proof of the death of the insured has been given to or received by the insurer, and when the merits of present case are adjudged on the touchstone of such provision of law, it would abundantly clear that, when on 17-6-2004, through claim, when the fact of death of the insured was, for the first time, placed before the Insurance Corporation, it was the point of time from-where the period of limitation was to be started for the appellant for filing an application under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 before the Tribunal. The application filed on 31-7-2006 was, thus, within time from 12-6-2004, and the appellant was illegally made victim of the law of limitation on the basis of wrong interpretation of the relevant provision.
7. We have noted, with concern, that in the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, although a power to scrutinize the claim of the claimants/LRs of deceased-insured, has been provided to the Insurance Company, but no period of time has been prescribed as to in which such claim has to be decided either way by the Insurance Company.
Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 provides that any civil servant aggrieved by any order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service may, within thirty days of the communication of such order to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal, whereas, in view of section 4(1)(a) of the said Act, it has been provided that, where an appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority is provided under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, or any rule against any such order, no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal unless the aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to such departmental authority and a period of ninety days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred.
This clearly indicates that whenever in any scheme of law, the departmental authority has been given a power to review its own decision, a stipulated time has been provided to such departmental authority and in case within such stipulated time, the matter pending before such authority is not decided, the aggrieved person would be entitled to prefer his appeal before the available legal forum constituted specifically in that regard.
No such parallel provisions have been provided in Insurance Laws and once a claim is filed before the Insurance Company by the LRs of deceased-insured, the Insurance Company has not been bound down with reference to a time limit within which the matter or claim placed before it, is to be decided or after expiry of the same, interested person would be competent to approach the Insurance Tribunal.
In the circumstances, when the authorities or the departments are given the power to review their own decisions, in fact, the role of a Judge has been assigned to their own cause, and such power must not to be unfettered or unbridled and at least should be checked through the restraints of time limit. Similarly, in labour laws, a workman aggrieved of any adverse order passed against him can competently issue a grievance notice to the employer and certain period of limitation has been provided for the employer to decide either way such grievance notice and like service matters, if within such certain period of limitation as provided under section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, the employer has failed to decide the grievance notice, it would be deemed that the same has been answered in negative and, thus, the workman would be competent to seek his remedy by filing a grievance petition before the concerned Labour Court within certain period of limitation, after such deeming refusal on the part of the employer.
8. Here in the insurance laws, we find nothing of the kind of such parallel provisions and in our view, the Insurance Companies/ Corporation have been given unbridled power to keep the claims pending with them for an indefinite period and, if the authorities sitting in the Corporations, want to use the same, as a tool to deprive the claimants from their legitimate right, the limitation period of three years may also be exhausted resulting into frustration of the claim of the concerned interested persons to be filed before the Insurance Tribunal within a period of three years as provided under Article 86(a) of the Limitation Act, 1908; therefore, we suggest necessary legislation to be introduced by the Ministry of Law resulting into suitable amendment in section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, providing certain limitation for Insurance Companies/Corporations, regarding decision on claim of the legal heirs of deceased insured within certain period and if within such period, such claim is not decided, it would be deemed that the same has been refused and, thus, the aggrieved persons would have a right to approach the Insurance Tribunal by moving an application under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.
The Insurance laws, as are available in the prevailing condition, are in the nature that the same provided unlimited time to the Insurance Company to withhold the claims of the aggrieved persons under the name of scrutiny or examination and it is left open to the Insurance Company to exhaust the period of limitation as has been provided for any aggrieved person to approach the Tribunal in order to redress his remedy. In certain cases, it has been noticed that with motivated intention the claim has been withheld by the Insurance Company till the expiry of period of limitation provided under- Article 86(a) of the Limitation Act, 1908, and thus, on being satisfied that the time limit provided in the relevant law had expired, the aggrieved person or persons are intimated about redundancy of their insurance claims, thus, practically making the aggrieved persons out of time for approaching the concerned Insurance Tribunal. This cannot be termed as a good law and need attention of the Legislature to convert the same into a beneficial and good law.
9. Copy of this judgment is, therefore, ordered to be delivered to the Secretary Law, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (Justice Division), Islamabad, for taking appropriate legislative measures in the lines, as noted hereinabove.
10. For reason that we are not in agreement with the findings of the Insurance Tribunal both on merits, as well as, on the point of limitation, the present appeal is allowed and the application moved by the appellant before the Insurance Tribunal stands allowed.