State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Religare Health Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Harwant Singh And Another on 8 February, 2021
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.133 of 2020
Date of institution : 04.03.2020
Date of decision : 08.02.2021
Religare Health Insurance Company Ltd., having its Service Branch at
Vipul Tech Square, Tower-C, 3rd Floor, Sector-43, Golf Course Road,
Gurugram, Haryana-122009, through its Manager Legal kashif Nazki.
....Appellant/Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Harwant Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh, Resident of H.No.B-
32/182, Jalandhar Vihar, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar-144011.
2. Ajinder Kaur W/o Sh. Jasmeet Singh, resident of H.No.B-32/182,
Jalandhar Vihar, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar-144011.
....Respondents/Complainants
First Appeal against the order dated
04.02.2020 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum (now,
"Commission") Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Advocate For the respondents : Sh. J.S. Thakur, Advocate.
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.2 against the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now, "Commission"), Jalandhar First Appeal No.133 of 2020 2 (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by respondents/complainants, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was disposed of, in the following terms:
12. First of all, the plea which was not taken in the rejection letter cannot be termed as condition for rejecting the claim of the complainant and if claim of the complainant has not been rejected on the said new plea then the same plea is not required to consider in this complaint and as such, we came to the conclusion that complainant No.1 is entitled for amount claimed by the complainant i.e. ₹20,00,000/-, whereas total expenditure of the complainant is more than ₹20,00,000/-. In view of the above, complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to pay medical insurance claim to the tune of ₹20,00,000/- to the complainant No.1. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission. Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that complainant No.2 is daughter-in-law of complainant No.1. She took Overseas Mediclaim Insurance Policy under plan namely "EXPLORE CANADA +" for travel period of 179 days, as a proposer on the life of Harwant Singh, complainant No.1 and his wife, Parvinder Kaur (mother-in-law of complainant No.2) as insured from the authorized agent. Proposal Form No.4100100090584 was filled and Insurance Policy bearing No.12347762 was issued, which was valid for the period 12.04.2018 to 07.10.2018 for sum insured of 1,00,000 US Dollar each for complainant No.1 and his wife Parvinder Kaur. The authorized agent of opposite parties obtained signatures of the insured on blank Proposal Form etc. in a mechanical and routine manner. The First Appeal No.133 of 2020 3 insurance premium for the above said period was paid. The opposite parties had agreed and undertaken to indemnify the insured for medical expenses for illness/sickness, accident sustained or contracted within the period of insurance. Complainant No.1, insured had perfect good health profile, insurability with no physical impairment and pre-existing disease/illness, except those mentioned in the Proposal Form. He was not afflicted with Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia at the time of taking of insurance policy. It is further averred that the details of the benefits and perils covered in the policy documents, containing terms and conditions and exclusion clauses, were not supplied by opposite parties to the complainants during subsistence of policy. Only the policy acceptance letter and Policy Certificate were issued, but the comprehensive policy was never issued. Complainant No.1 (hereinafter to be referred as "insured") proceeded to Canada. During his stay there, he complained unwellness and consulted Surrey Memorial Hospital. He was admitted there on 11.05.2018 and was discharged on the same day after giving treatment. The insured also took treatment from Medical Cleaning Family Physician and also underwent requisite medical tests. The insured lodged the claim with the opposite parties for reimbursement of the expenses incurred and paid from their own sources and submitted all the bills/cash memos etc. to them. However, the claim was rejected by the opposite parties, vide letter dated 23.07.2018, on the grounds of alleged non-disclosure of pre-existing medical conditions and misrepresentation. The rejection of the claim was First Appeal No.133 of 2020 4 illegal, as the insured was not suffering from any pre-existing disease at the time of taking the policy. The opposite parties violated the guidelines issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants approached the District Commission, seeking direction to them to pay/reimburse the amount of ₹20 lac towards medical expenses incurred on the treatment of the insured.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before the District Commission and filed reply to the complaint, raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, as the complainants are guilty of non-disclosure of material facts of Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia at the time of taking policy. The complainants were issued a Travel Insurance Policy No.12347762, covering complainant No.1 and his spouse for their travel to Canada with effect from 12.04.2018 to 07.10.2018 for a sum insured of 100000USD, subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The complainants approached the opposite parties, seeking cashless claim with respect to the hospitalization of complainant No.1, insured, in Surrey Memorial Hospital, Canada, with complaints of fever and mild cough with effect from 03.05.2018 to 10.05.2018. He was diagnosed with febrile illness, which ultimately was found to have evidence of a liver abscess as well as a possible small right lower lobe lung abscess. The insured was further diagnosed for Hyperglycemia with marked elevation of liver First Appeal No.133 of 2020 5 function tests as well as elevated blood pressure. On perusal of documents, it was found in the Cashless Form duly attested by the Treating Hospital as well as the insured that he was mentioned as a known case of Hypertension from February, 2016 i.e. prior to inception of the policy. Further, as per Physician Progress Notes dated 03.05.2018, the insured is mentioned to have previous medical history (PMH) of Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia (a condition, having levels of fat particles "lipids" in the blood). It is also mentioned therein that the insured had been previously on the medication of Tab. Telmisarton, Tab. Atorvastatin and Tab. Ecosprin in India for the said ailments, prior to taking the insurance policy. Further, as per Prescription Note dated 09.04.2018 issued by Dr. K.S. Makkar, the insured was suffering from Hypertension and Hyper-cholesterol and he was prescribed Tab. Telma, Tab. Lipvas, Tab. Ecosprin. Since complainant No.1 concealed the pre-existing diseases suffered by him prior to inception of the insurance policy, so the claim was rejected, vide letter dated 23.07.2018. The insured breached Clause 19 (4) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder's Interest) Regulations, 2017, as per which the insured is duty bound to disclose all the material facts to the insurer, in order to assess the risk, as per its capacity. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Reference to various authorities has been made in the reply. On merits, similar pleas, as raised in the preliminary objections, were reiterated and denying all other allegations contained First Appeal No.133 of 2020 6 in the complaint, it was prayed that the same be dismissed with special costs.
5. Rejoinder was filed in which the averments of the complaint were reiterated and that of reply filed by the opposite parties were controverted.
Evidence of the Parties and Finding of the District Commission
6. The complainants, in support of their claim, tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant No.2 as Ex.C-20, along with documents Proposal Form Ex.C-1, Policy Certificates Ex.C-2 & Ex.C- 3, repudiation letter dated 23.07.2018 Ex.C-4, bills/invoices Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-15, Final Report dated 03.05.2018 issued by Surrey Memorial Hospital Ex.C-16, Discharge Summary Ex.C-17, Special Power of Attorney Ex.C-18 and Passport of complainant No.2 Ex.C-19. The opposite parties, in support of their defence, tendered affidavit of Sh. Kashif Muzaffar Nazki, Manager (Legal) as Ex.R-A, along with documents i.e. Policy Certificate Ex.R-1, Policy Terms and Conditions Ex.R-2, Request for Cashless Hospitalization Ex.R-3, Conditions Ex.R-2, Request for Cashless Hospitalization Ex.R-3, Emergency/Ambulatory Clinical Record Ex.R-4, prescription slip issued by Makkar Hospital Ex.R-5, Cashless Rejection letter dated 23.07.2018 Ex.R-6, Proposal Form Ex.R-7, IRDA guidelines Ex.R-8, judgments Ex.R-9 (colly.). The District Commission, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, disposed of the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/opposite party No.2.
First Appeal No.133 of 2020 7Contentions of the Parties
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the appellant and respondent No.1/complainant No.1 as well as records of the case.
8. The written arguments submitted on behalf of the appellant are on the lines of pleadings made in its reply as well as grounds of appeal. The sum and substance of oral and written arguments is that the claim of the complainants was rightly repudiated, under Clause 5.1 of the Policy Terms and Conditions, on the grounds that prior to taking the insurance policy, in question, complainant No.1, insured, was suffering from Hypertension, Hyperlipidemia, Hypercholesterol, liver abscess etc. These facts are evident from the medical record of Surrey Memorial Hospital, Canada, Physician Notes dated 03.05.2018 and prescription slip issued by Dr. K.S. Makkar, Ex.R-3 to Ex.R-5. However, the insured deliberately and intentionally concealed these material facts at the time of filling up the Proposal Form. By doing so, he breached Clause 19 (4) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder's Interest) Regulations, 2017. The District Commission has ignored the above said material evidence, while passing the impugned order. The contract of insurance is of utmost good faith, i.e. uberrima fides, and intentional and willful concealment of any material fact vitiates it. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon following cases:
First Appeal No.133 of 2020 8
i) Santwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2009) 8 SCC 316;
ii) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Neelam Sharma RP No.967 of 2008, decided on 30.09.2014 (NC); and
iii) Subinoy Majumdar v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. RP No.3339 of 2014 decided on 12.05.2016 (NC).
9. The written arguments submitted on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 are on the lines of averments made in the complaint. The sum and substance of oral and written arguments is that complainant No.1, insured, was not suffering from any pre-existing disease, nor he ever concealed any material information while taking the insurance policy. The agent of the opposite party obtained signatures of the insured and his wife on blank documents and forms. The insured had suddenly felt unwellnes in Canada and was hospitalized there. The claim was lodged and all the required documents were submitted, but the opposite parties repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds, without any basis. No terms and conditions of the policy were ever conveyed to the insured and only Policy Certificate was issued. The opposite parties violated the guidelines issued by the IRDA, while repudiating the genuine claim of the complainants. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Consideration of Contentions
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. The admitted facts are that complainant No.2, who is daughter-in-law of complainant No.1, obtained Mediclaim Health First Appeal No.133 of 2020 9 Insurance Policy under Plan, namely "Explore-Canada+", for complainant No.1 and his wife Smt. Parvinder Kaur. Policy Certificate dated 09.04.2018 Ex.C-2 was issued, which was valid from 12.04.2018 to 07.10.2018. The sum insured under that policy was 100000 USD for each insured. During that period, complainant No.1, insured, visited Canada. He felt unwellness there and was admitted in Surrey Memorial Hospital on 03.05.2018. After giving requisite treatment, he was discharged on 10.05.2018 as per Invoice, Ex.C-13. A sum of 38034.18 Canadian Dollars was spent on his treatment, as per bills/invoices, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-16. However, the claim lodged by the complainants for reimbursement of the treatment expenses of the insured was repudiated by the opposite parties, vide letter dated 23.07.2018, Ex.C-4, as per Clause 5.1 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, on the ground that the insured did not disclose about the diseases of Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia at the time of filling up the Proposal Form, which he was suffering prior to inception of the policy. The only question to be decided in this appeal is, whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainants on the above referred ground is legal and valid or not?
12. The opposite parties have relied upon Request for Cashless Hospitalization, Ex.R-3, and medical record of Surrey Memorial Hospital, Canada, Ex.R-4 to contend that the insured Harwant Singh was suffering from Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia prior to the taking the insurance policy. First of all, it needs to be mentioned that both the above noted diseases were not specifically First Appeal No.133 of 2020 10 asked for from the insured, while filling the Proposal Form, Ex.C-1. While answering to the questions in the Proposal Form, the insured duly disclosed that he was suffering from Diabetes since February, 2008. This fact is also mentioned in the Policy Certificate Ex.C- 2/Annexure A-1 of appeal. However, the fact remains that since no specific question about diseases of Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia was put in the Proposal Form, so it cannot be said that the insured had concealed the same at the relevant time. The disease of diabetes has no nexus with the diseases of Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia. Furthermore, in the "Request for Cashless Hospitalization", Ex.R-3, nature of illness/disease with presenting complaints is given as under:
"Loss of Appetite, generalized weakness, fever, chills."
No nexus between the above said diseases and Hypertension/ Hyperlipidemia has been proved on record by the opposite parties. The prescription slip dated 09.04.1985 issued by Makkar Hospital, Ex.R-5, pertains to one Harbans Singh and not insured, Harwant Singh. Due to difference of name of the patient, it cannot be said that insured had taken treatment from Makkar Hospital on 09.04.1985 for the ailments mentioned therein. No other medical record has been produced by the opposite parties to prove that the insured was suffering from the above noted diseases prior to taking the insurance policy. Although, as per Discharge Summary, Ex.C-16, the insured was having symptoms of liver abscess as well as possible small right lower lobe lung abscess. It is matter of common knowledge that some ailments can spend decades, lurking in the body of an individual, until First Appeal No.133 of 2020 11 they suddenly spring-up in life. Many persons have diseases that they are already having without knowing. The diseases remain dormant in the body for years. Some illnesses have incubation period of anywhere from years to decades. Some diseases wait in the body for decades before striking. Liver abscess and Hyperlipidemia diseases can also remain dormant for many months/years. At any time and at any age, they can strike without warning, changing life forever. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the insured was having notice of liver abscess and Hyperlipidemia before taking the policy. Furthermore, the Insurance Company was supposed to conduct requisite medical tests to monitor the health status of the insured at the time of filling up the Proposal Form, but there is no such evidence on record to prove that they adopted this practice at the relevant time. The burden of proof was upon the opposite parties to prove that the insured was suffering from above referred diseases prior to taking the policy, but they have miserably failed to discharge this onus, by not leading any cogent and convincing evidence to prove this fact. In case Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar III (2014) CPJ 221 (NC), it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that usually, the authorized doctor of the Insurance Company examines the insured to assess the fitness and after complete satisfaction, the policy is issued. Thus, the repudiation of the claim on the ground of pre-existing disease was held to be invalid.
13. In similar set of circumstances, the Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No.477 of 2020 (Bajaj Allianz General First Appeal No.133 of 2020 12 Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Avtar Singh Mann), decided vide order dated 17.08.2020, has upheld the decision of this Commission by dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company in limine. In that case, the complainant had taken an Overseas Travel Insurance Policy, namely "TRAVELE LITESILVER", from the Insurance Company. During the validity period of that policy, the complainant visited Canada and suffered ailments and was hospitalized there. The repudiation of the claim on the grounds of pre-existing disease suffered by the complainant was held by this Commission, to be wrong and illegal. The view taken by this Commission has been affirmed by the Hon'ble National Commission.
14. Similarly, in another case i.e. First Appeal No.545 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Limited v. Jatinder Singh & Anr.) decided, vide order dated 05.01.2021, the order passed by this Commission, directing the Insurance Company to pay medical expenses incurred by the insured on his treatment, along with interest and compensation, has been upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission.
15. So far as Hypertension is concerned, in case Satish Chander Madan v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2016) CPJ 613 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission held that Hypertension is a common ailment and it can be controlled by medication and it is not necessary that a person suffering from Hypertension would always suffer a heart attack or other ailments. In paras No.8 to 10 it was held as follows:
First Appeal No.133 of 2020 13
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, the Insurance Company was not required to reimburse the petitioner complainant for expenses incurred by him on pre-
existing disease. Learned Counsel has argued that from the medical report of the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner was suffering from hypertension prior to the purchase of the insurance policy and since hypertension has a direct nexus with heart ailment, the respondent Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the insurance claim in view of the exclusion clause which excluded the expenses incurred on pre-existing disease.
9. We do not find merit in the above contention. On perusal of the copy of the medical report of the petitioner dated 4.6.2010 issued by Dr. David P. Lipkin as also the letter of the doctor dated 7.6.2010 addressed to Dr. M. Fertleman of Wellington Hospital would show that as per the observations of Dr. David P. Lipkin, the petitioner had a previous history of hypertension and he was on BP medicine Telmisartan. The above referred reports do not mention that the petitioner disclosed any previous history of heart problem. Therefore, the only fact established by the above reports is that the petitioner prior to obtaining insurance policy was having history of hypertension. This, however, does not lead to conclusion that petitioner was also having previous history of heart problem. Therefore, the insurance claim submitted by the complainant for treatment of his heart problem cannot be termed as a claim in respect of a pre existing disease. Thus, repudiation of insurance claim by the respondent opposite party is not justified.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that it is established on record that the petitioner was having a previous history of hypertension and since hypertension can lead to heart problem, the respondent was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that the heart problem suffered by the petitioner was caused by pre existing hypertension. There is no merit in this contention. Hypertension is a common ailment and it can be controlled by medication and it is not necessary that a person suffering from hypertension would always suffer a heart attack. Therefore, the argument advanced by respondent is far fetched and is liable to be rejected."
16. Further in Civil Writ Petition No.20040 of 2008 decided on 17.12.2008 (Max New York Life Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh & Anr.), our own High Court held that First Appeal No.133 of 2020 14 hypertension is a disease, which could escape attention of a person and is required to be diagnosed by experts.
17. Further in case "Veena Sharma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India" 1999 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 646, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that mere non-mentioning of insured being a patient of hypertension did not amount to suppression of material facts, so as to entitle the respondent to repudiate the claim.
18. Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sudha Jain 2007(2) CLT 423 has drawn conclusions in para 9 of the order and the relevant clause is 9(iii), which is reproduced as under:-
"9(iii) Malaise of hypertension, diabetes occasional pain, cold, headache, arthritis and the like in the body are normal wear and tear of modern day life which is full of tension at the place of work, in and out of the house and are controllable on day-to-day basis by standard medication and cannot be used as concealment of pre-existing disease for repudiation of the insurance claim unless an insured in the near proximity of taking of the policy is hospitalized or operated upon for the treatment of these diseases or any other disease."
19. In case New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 111, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court expressed its anguish and observed as follows:-
"It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums, which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance Companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of First Appeal No.133 of 2020 15 obtaining policy. This is, thus, pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy."
20. Furthermore, it is the specific plea of the complainants that the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy were never conveyed/supplied to them and only the Certificate of Insurance, Ex.C- 2, is alleged to have been sent. Although, the Insurance Company has alleged that all the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy was supplied to the insured, but no cogent and convincing evidence, such as dispatch number, postal receipts etc., has been produced on record to prove this fact. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Modern Insulators Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 734 reversed the order of the Hon'ble National, observing that it failed to consider the fact that the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company were not supplied to the insured and upheld the order of the State Commission, allowing the claim. Thus, when the insured was not aware about the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, then the question of concealment of material facts can also not be raised. It is the duty of the Insurance Company to bring all the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy to the specific notice of the insured. In the absence of notice of the terms and conditions of the policy, the same cannot be enforced upon the insured.
21. It is also relevant to mention here that Section 19 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 states that it shall be the duty of every Insurance Company to carry on general First Appeal No.133 of 2020 16 insurance business so as to develop it to the best advantage of the community. The denial of medical expenses reimbursement is utterly arbitrary on the ground that diseases, in question, were pre-existing disease. It is mere an excuse to escape liability and is not bona fide intention of the insurance company. Fairness and non-arbitrariness are considered as two immutable pillars supporting the equity principle, an unshakable threshold of State and public behavior. Any policy in the realm of insurance company should be informed, fair and non-arbitrary. When the insurance policy has exclusions/conditions to repudiate the claim or limit the liability, the same must be specifically brought to the notice of the insured and are required to be got signed to show that such exclusions and conditions have been brought to his/her notice.
22. The need for interpreting a contract always arises in two situations, (i) when a gap is needed to be filled in the contract and (ii) an ambiguity is needed to be resolved in the contract, then to find out correct intention of the contract, spirit behind it is required to be considered. Normally, the insurance policy is a contract of adhesion in which other party is left with hardly any bargaining power as compared to the insurer. Insurance contracts are standard form contracts and are drafted by the insurance company and as such, insurance company is at higher footing than the insured. The benefit of such clause, as exclusion clause, would go to the insured unless the same is explained in clear terms by the insurer. In such circumstances, the tribunal would be more oriented towards the interpretation which goes against the party who has inserted/drafted the disputed clause in the First Appeal No.133 of 2020 17 agreement/contract. The adjudicating authority is required to look into whether the intention of the party is to exclude or limit liability has been appropriately explained to the other party or not. This Commission while interpreting insurance agreement is to honour the intention of the parties, who have signed the agreement. Even if the agreement had general exclusion/condition for misrepresentation still fraudulent misrepresentation and non-disclosure may not be there. The innocent and negligent misrepresentations are to be ignored.
23. In view of our above discussion, the opposite parties failed to prove that the insured was suffering from aforesaid pre-existing diseases before taking the insurance policy. Thus, the claim of the complainants was wrongly and illegally repudiated. There is no ground or justification to set aside the impugned order.
24. Accordingly, the appeal, being without any merit, is hereby dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.
25. The appellant had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. It deposited another sum of ₹14,75,000/-, vide receipt dated 17.08.2020, in compliance of order dated 06.03.2020 passed by this Commission. Both these amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. Respondent No.1/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law. First Appeal No.133 of 2020 18
26. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases and pandemic of COVID-19.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER February 08, 2021.
(Gurmeet S)