IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 10.03.2023 Date of Hearing: 25.04.2025 Date of Decision: 15.05.2025 REVISION PETITION NO. 42/2023 &

FIRST APPEAL NO.-104/2023 IN THE MATTER OF MR. SHASHANK ANIL SINGH, S/O MR. ANIL SINGH, R/O 4041, VIJAY COLONY, GALI NO. 1, BURARI, DELHI-110084.

(Through: Appellant in person)

…Appellant VERSUS STAR HEALTH & ALLIED INSURANCE COMPANY, THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER:

DR. MADHUKAR PANDEY (HEALTH CLAIMS), 1ST FLOOR, HIMALAYA HOUSE, 23, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Appellant in person.

None for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. Perusal of record reflects that the Petitioner in the present case has filed a First Appeal bearing no. FA/104/2023 assailing the order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I along with an application seeking condonation of delay which was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 20.04.2023.

2. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.06.2023, the Hon’ble National Commission set aside the order dated 20.04.2023 and remanded the present case to decide it upon merits and the present case is listed before this Commission. However, the Registry has wrongly listed the documents pertaining to the Appeal bearing no. FA/104/2023 as Revision Petition

42/2023.

3. Vide order dated 25.04.2025, the present case is reserved for orders in FA/104/2023.

4. Therefore, no separate order is required to be passed in the Revision Petition No. 42/2023 and consequently stands disposed off.

5. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“On the last date of hearing, we have heard the arguments of the Complainant in person, who is also an Advocate by Profession. Briefly stated, the Complainant has filed this complaint challenging the repudiation of the health insurance claim of the Complainant's Covid-19 treatment at Thane, Maharashtra during the period from 18.06.2022 to 23.06.2022. The Complainant lodged the insurance claim, which was repudiated by the OP on 12.07.2022, which is under challenge before this Commission.

2. At the onset, we have enquired about the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission primarily on the ground that (i) the insurance policy was purchased by the Complaint on 28.04.2022 when the Complainant was residing at Mumbai and the said policy was issued by the Andheri (E), Mumbai branch of the Op, i.e. the policy servicing branch is situated at Mumbai (Maharashtra); (ii) the treatment of the Complainant was taken at Thane, Maharashtra and the insurance claim was lodged in Maharashtra; and (iii) communication between the parties so filed by the Complainant before us indicate that the policy claim servicing branch, with respect to the policy in question, is situated at Chennai.

3. In reply, the Complainant answered that although the policy was purchased using Mumbai address of the Complainant, the Complainant currently resides in Burari, which is within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. He has placed reliance on the Election Photo Identity Card (EPIC) issued in favour of the Complainant which indicates the Burari address of the Complainant. The EPIC is on record, but we notice that the said EPIC was issued on 20.10.2022, the date which indicates that the Complainant has recently shifted to the current address.”

6. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 24.01.2023, whereby it held as under:

4. In this context, we would like to refer to section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA, 2019) which reads as under:

"34: Jurisdiction of District Commission (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does no