TATA AIG (MEDICARE) GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED vs NAZMA KHATUN

1


2026:CGHC:17860
Digitally signed by
ALOK SHARMA
Date: 2026.05.13
16:12:01 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 465 of 2026
1 - Tata Aig (Medicare) General Insurance Limited Regional Office
Peninsula Business Park Tower- A, 15th Floor, Gk Marg, Lower Parel
Road Mumbai (M.H.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Nazma Khatun W/o Late Hafiz Qureshi R/o Ward No. 32, Kothari
Godripara, Chirmiri, Ps And Tehsil Chirmiri, District Korea (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, on behalf of Mr.
Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board
20/04/2026
1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28.11.2025,
passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi, in Second Appeal No. 783 of 2025,
whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner has been
dismissed.

2
2. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the respondent,
namely late Hafiz Qureshi, had taken a health insurance policy
from the petitioner in his and his wife’s name and the policy No.
7000014328-00 was issued in their favour. The policy was
effective from 25.08.2021 to 24.08.2022, and the sum assured
was Rs. 3,00,000/-. The premium of Rs. 13,229/- was paid to
purchase the said medical insurance policy. The said policy was
issued in favour of Hafiz Qureshi and his wife after due verification
of the document and the health condition obtained. During the
existence of the said medical policy, the husband of the
respondent suffered from an ailment, and he was admitted to
Shaguna Mod, Dhanpuri Patna on 26.11.2021, from where he
was shifted to Paras Superspeciality Hospital, Patna for
treatment, where he was undergoing treatment till 05.12.2021.
During treatment, he died on 05.12.2021, and till that time, a total
of Rs. 7,29,528/- was the expenditure on his treatment, out of
which Rs. 30,000/- was given as a discount. After the death of the
husband of the respondent, she made a claim from the insurance
company/petitioner and submitted all the requisite documents and
completed the formalities. Despite repeated requests, when the
insurance company had not granted the insurance claim, the
respondent sent a letter through registered post on 27.04.2022.
The petitioner company has not paid any amount and has not
taken any action on her application. Thereafter, the petitioner
approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

3
Commission, Koriya, Baikunthpur, by filing the complaint under
Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The said
complaint was filed on 23.11.2022 and registered as Sub Circuit
No. 194 of 2022. After hearing the parties, the complaint of the
respondent was decided on 29.01.2025, and an amount of Rs.
8,35,591/- was awarded as compensation towards the said
insurance policy. In favour of the respondent, which was payable
within 3 months from the date of the order. IN case of delay, the
awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
till the last payment date.
3. The petitioner insurance company challenged the order dated
29.01.2025 before the learned Chhattisgarh State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, Circuit Bench at
Bilaspur on 09.06.2025 along with an application for condonation
of the delay of 86 days in filing the appeal. The said appeal was
registered as Appeal Case No. SC/22/FA/306/2025. The learned
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, after hearing
the appellant, rejected the application filed by the appellant for
condonation of delay, and as a corollary consequence, the appeal
was also dismissed vide its order dated 28.07.2025. While
considering the explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, the
learned State Consumer Commission has held that the appellant
has failed to explain a sufficient reason for the delay in filing the
appeal, which cannot be condoned.

4
4. The said order dated 28.07.2025 was further challenged by the
petitioner before the learned National Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission, New Delhi, by filing Second Appeal No.
783/2025, which was came up for hearing on 28.11.2025.
5. And the second appeal filed by the petitioner has also been
dismissed, holding that the delay in filing the appeal before the
learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has not
been sufficiently explained, and the first appeal has rightly been
dismissed by the learned State Commission on the ground of
limitation, and the order dated 28.07.2025 passed in first appeal
No. SC/22/FA/306/2025 has been affirmed. Hence, the present
petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
policy issued by the petitioner is only to the extent of Rs.
3,00,000/-, and the respondent claimed the insured sum of Rs.
3,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards mental and physical agony.
However, the District Consumer Forum awarded a sum of Rs.
8,53,591/- along with the interest @ 6% per annum. The
challenge to the award before the learned State Consumer
Commission has been dismissed on limitation as the same has
been filed after a delay of 86 days. The state commission has
failed to exercise its jurisdiction to condone the delay, which they
ought to have condoned in filing the first appeal, keeping in view
the various departmental processes to obtain sanction for filing
the appeal. The application for condonation of delay contains

5
sufficient reason, and the learned State Commission should have
taken a liberal consideration and should have condoned the delay.
The said delay in filing the appeal was bona fide and
unintentional. She would further submit that the first appeal
cannot be dismissed on such a technical ground of condonation of
delay. The learned National Commission has also not considered
the explanation for the condonation of delay submitted by the
petitioner. She would further submit that Section 51(1) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, empowers the National
Commission to entertain an appeal after the prescribed period,
after showing a sufficient reason for delay; however, they too have
failed to exercise their jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. The
learned National Commission should also have adopted the
liberal approach to condone the delay; however, without going into
the merits of the case, the application for condonation of delay
has been rejected, and the appeal has also been dismissed. The
substantive right of the petitioner is affected, and therefore, the
writ petition may be allowed, and the matter may be remitted back
to the learned State Consumer Forum for the decision of the first
appeal on the merits of the case.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material annexed with the petition.
8. Present is a writ petition challenging the order passed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi,
whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner has been

6
dismissed, and the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the State
Consumer Forum has been affirmed. The order dated 28.07.2025
passed by the State Consumer Commission is the order by which
the first appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated
29.01.2025 has been dismissed on the ground of delay after
rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission passed the order on
29.01.2025, which was challenged by the petitioner before the
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission on 09.06.2025,
which was delayed by 86 days. In the application for condonation
of delay, the petitioner explained the reason for the delay that, in
the process of obtaining a sanction for filing the appeal and to
take legal advice, the delay of 86 days occurred, which is of a
procedural nature. The learned State Consumer Commission has
observed in its order dated 28.07.2025 that on 29.01.2025, when
the order was passed by the District Consumer Commission, the
counsel representing the petitioner was present and aware of the
order. He obtained the second certified copy of on 20.02.2025;
however, they filed the appeal on 09.06.2025. The reason for the
delay, as explained by the appellant, is not sufficient to consider it
bona fide. After considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of H. Guruswami and Others vs. A.
Krishnaiah, since deceased by Lrs . Decided on 08.01.2025 in
Civil Appeal No. 317/2025, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ram
Kumar Choudhary, decided on 29.11.2024 in SLP (C) diary No.

7
48636 of 2024 and Pathapati Subbareddy (died) by Lrs. , and
others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) decided on
08.04.2024 in SLP (C) No. 31248 of 2018 came to the conclusion
that the delay in filing the appeal has not been sufficiently
explained the appellant and has rejected the application for
condonation of delay, and accordingly, the first appeal has also
been dismissed.
9. While considering the second appeal by the learned National
Consumer Commission, they are also in concurrence with the
finding recorded by the learned State Consumer Commission that
the delay of 86 days in filing the appeal has not been sufficiently
explained by the appellant. The national consumer commission
has further relied upon the case of UP Coop Federation Limited
vs. Sunder Bros AIR 1967 SC 249, Gujarat Steel Tubes
Limited vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Majdoor Sabha 1980 (2) SCC
592, Bappanand Narshimman Annu vs. Hirmanidevi GS
Gupta and Others 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 2605, State of MP
Bherulal 2020 (10) SCC 654 , affirmed the order passed by the
State Consumer Commission by holding that the petitioner has
not sufficiently explained the reasons for the delay in filing the
appeal.
10. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is limited in nature and is to be exercised
sparingly only in cases of patent perversity, gross jurisdictional
error, manifest illegality, or failure of justice. The power under

8
Article 227 does not confer upon this Court the status of an
appellate forum to re-appreciate facts or substitute its own view
merely because another view is possible. In matters relating to
condonation of delay and limitation, the discretion exercised by
the courts/forums below, upon consideration of the explanation
furnished by the party, ordinarily does not warrant interference
unless such discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily,
capriciously, or in disregard of settled legal principles. In the
present case, both the learned State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission as well as the learned National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission have concurrently recorded a
finding that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for
condonation of the delay of 86 days in filing the first appeal. The
explanation furnished by the petitioner, namely, procedural delay
in obtaining sanction and legal opinion, has been duly considered
and rejected by both the forums by assigning cogent reasons and
by relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
governing the law of limitation and condonation of delay.
11. In the case of “ Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel ” 2022 (4)
SCC 181, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-
“ 15 . Having heard the counsel for the parties,
we are clearly of the view that the impugned
order is contrary to law and cannot be
sustained for several reasons, but primarily for
deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised
by the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The High Court
exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act
as a court of first appeal to reappreciate,
reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the

9
determination under challenge is based.
Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every
error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final
finding is justified or can be supported. The
High Court is not to substitute its own decision
on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior
court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is
in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set
right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant
abuse, violation of fundamental principles of
law or justice. The power under Article 227 is
exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like
when there is no evidence at all to justify, or
the finding is so perverse that no reasonable
person can possibly come to such a
conclusion that the court or tribunal has come
to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief
must be exercised to ensure there is no
miscarriage of justice.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under
Article 227, this Court Estralla Rubber v. Dass
Estate (P) Ltd. has observed: (SCC pp. 101
102, para 6)
"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of
power and jurisdiction by a High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
examined and explained in a number of
decisions of this Court. The exercise of power
under this article involves a duty on the High
Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals
within the bounds of their authority and to see
that they do the duty expected or required of
them in a legal manner. The High Court is not
vested with any unlimited prerogative to
correct all kinds of hardship or wrong
decisions made within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or
tribunals. Exercise of this power and
interfering with the orders of the courts or
tribunals is restricted to cases of serious
dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice, where
if the High Court does not interfere, a grave
injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well
settled that the High Court while acting under
this Article cannot exercise its power as an
appellate court or substitute its own judgment
in place of that of the subordinate court to
correct an error, which is not apparent on the
face of the record. The High Court can set

10
aside or ignore the findings of facts of an
inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence
at all to justify or the finding is so perverse,
that no reasonable person can possibly come
to such a conclusion, which the court or
tribunal has come to."
12. This Court, upon perusal of the orders impugned and the material
available on record, is also in agreement with the findings
recorded by the two forums below. No jurisdictional error,
procedural irregularity, perversity, or manifest injustice is
demonstrated by the petitioner so as to invoke the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. The concurrent findings with regard to limitation are based
upon proper appreciation of the facts and settled principles of law,
and the petitioner has failed to establish that the approach
adopted by the forums below suffers from any illegality warranting
interference. Merely because the petitioner seeks adjudication of
the appeal on merits would not be a ground to dilute the statutory
mandate relating to limitation, particularly when the delay has not
been satisfactorily explained.
13. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned orders passed by the learned National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, affirming the order
passed by the learned State Commission. The writ petitioner,
therefore, is dismissed .
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Alok