Appellate Commission Condones 250-Day Delay, Directs District Forum to Hear Tata AIG Insurance Claim on Merits
In a significant decision emphasizing compassion and justice, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has set aside the earlier order of the District Consumer Forum which had dismissed a mediclaim complaint filed by Ms. Priya Mehrotra against Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed limitation period.
The case arose from Ms. Mehrotra's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses amounting to Rs. 25,73,529/- incurred for the treatment of her late husband, who had been covered under Tata AIG's mediclaim policy. The insurance company repudiated the claim citing the "waiting period" clause, stating that the treatment related to cirrhosis was within two years of the policy inception and thus not payable. After unsuccessful attempts through the company's grievance redressal cell and the Insurance Ombudsman, Ms. Mehrotra approached the District Consumer Forum.
However, the District Forum dismissed the complaint as time-barred, observing that the complaint was filed after the two-year limitation period stipulated under Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Forum ruled that since the cause of action arose on the date of repudiation, the complaint should have been filed within two years, and no sufficient cause for delay was provided.
Undeterred, Ms. Mehrotra filed an appeal before the State Commission. In her appeal, she explained that she suffered from severe clinical depression following the demise of her husband and was under medical treatment for the same. This, she contended, delayed her ability to initiate legal proceedings promptly. Supporting her claim, she submitted medical prescriptions and records corroborating her mental health condition.
The Division Bench of the Delhi State Consumer Commission, led by Ms. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, carefully examined the evidence and the legal provisions. The Commission referred to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for condonation of delay if "sufficient cause" is shown. It further emphasized that while Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act mandates a two-year limitation period, this period can be extended in the interest of justice if a reasonable explanation for delay exists.
The Commission found the explanation of Ms. Mehrotra's clinical depression to constitute sufficient cause for condoning the 250-day delay in filing the complaint. Consequently, the Commission set aside the District Forum's order dismissing the complaint as time-barred and remanded the matter back for adjudication on the merits within three months.
This judgment is a landmark reminder that procedural limitations, while important, must be balanced against the realities of human suffering and circumstances beyond litigants' control. The Commission's ruling upholds the principle that justice should not be denied on mere technical grounds when a genuine cause for delay is demonstrated.
The parties have been directed to appear before the District Commission on November 17, 2026, to proceed with the substantive hearing of the mediclaim dispute.
Bottom Line:
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Limitation - Delay of 250 days in filing consumer complaint - Delay explained on ground that complainant suffered clinical depression after death of husband and was under treatment - Such explanation constituted sufficient cause - Order dismissing complaint as time-barred set aside - Matter remanded to District Commission for decision on merits.
Statutory provision(s):
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 69(1), Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
Priya Mehrotra v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., (DSCDRC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2995131
