ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present revision petition filed under section 17(1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against interim order dated 27.07.2017 passed by learned District Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 59/2017 title Satish Kumar Bansal vs. Apollo Munich Health Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. whereby learned District Forum struck off the defence of opposite parties on the ground that opposite parties did not file version within 45 days. Brief facts of Consumer Complaint: 2. Complainant Satish Kumar filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant purchased health insurance policy from opposite parties. It is pleaded that complainant suffered pain in his abdomen and he was admitted in Gupta Hospital and Ivy Hospital for medical treatment. It is further pleaded that complainant incurred about Rs. 38760/- (Thirty eight thousand seven hundred sixty) on his medical treatment and medicines. It is further pleaded that complainant submitted claim before opposite parties but opposite parties did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 38760/- Thirty eight thousand seven hundred sixty) alongwith upto date interest till realization. In addition complainant sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) on account of mental torture and physical harassment. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Defence of opposite party was closed by the learned District Forum vide interim order dated 27.07.2017 because opposite parties did not file version within 45 days after service of notice of complaint. 4. Feeling aggrieved against interim order dated 27.07.2017 passed by learned District Forum opposite parties filed present revision petition before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition. 1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionists is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 7. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that opposite parties engaged advocate in time and version was not filed by advocate in time and on this ground revision petition be allowed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are time bound proceedings. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 7. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that opposite parties engaged advocate in time and version was not filed by advocate in time and on this ground revision petition be allowed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are time bound proceedings. It is well settled law that as per Consumer Protection Act 1986 version should be filed within 45 days after service of notice upon opposite parties. In the present case opposite parties did not file version within 45 days after service of notices. As of today matter has been referred to Hon''ble Constitution bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India for deciding whether period of 45 days for filing version could be extended or not and matter is subjudice before Hon''ble Constitution bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. Hon''ble National Commission in case reported in 2017 (2) CPR 592 NC titled Neptune Venture & Developers (P) Ltd. vs. Shailesh Tripathi held that during the pendency of matter before the Hon''ble Constitution bench of Supreme Court of India stipulated period of 45 days could be extended subject to costs. Even Hon''ble Apex Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2365 of 2017 decided on 10.02.2017 titled Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & other vs. Mapee Timbers Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & other held that version of opposite parties could be filed after expiry of 45 days subject to heavy costs during the pendency of matter before Hon''ble Constitution bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. It is well settled law that rulings given by Hon''ble National Commission and Hon''ble Apex Court of India are binding upon State Commission. Even it is well settled law that party cannot be penalized for the fault of advocate. 8. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist that revisionists intentionally did not file version within statutory period of 45 days and on this ground revision petition filed by opposite parties be dismissed is decided accordingly. It is held that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to extend the period for filing version keeping in view the rulings cited supra. It is held that nonrevisionist could be compensated with heavy costs for filing version at belated stage. It is held that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to extend the period for filing version keeping in view the rulings cited supra. It is held that nonrevisionist could be compensated with heavy costs for filing version at belated stage. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 9. In view of findings upon point No. 1 revision petition is allowed and interim order of learned District Forum dated 27.07.2017 passed by learned District Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 59/2017 title Satish Kumar vs. Apollo Munich Health Insurance Co. & Anr. is set aside and opposite parties are permitted to file version before learned District Forum subject to payment of costs to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand). Costs to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) would be paid by revisionists to the complainant before learned District Forum. After payment of costs learned District Forum shall take version of opposite parties on record and thereafter learned District Forum would proceed further in accordance with law. Order passed in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice keeping in view latest rulings given by Hon''ble Apex Court of India and Hon''ble National Consumer Commission. Learned District Forum will dispose of complaint expeditiously within two months after receipt of file strictly in accordance with law and proved facts. Be listed before learned District Forum expeditiously. Observations will not effect merits of the consumer complaint in any manner. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of cost strictly as per rules. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.