BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.305/2025 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.61/2024, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD Between :

Care Health Insurance Co.Ltd., (Formerly known as Religare Health Insurance Ltd.)

Office at 5^th Floor, 19 Chawla House, Nehru Palace, New Delhi – 110 019.

Represented by its Managing Director.

…….. Appellant/Opp.Party And Sanjay Gupta, S/o.Late Ramakishan Gupta, Aged: 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.101, H.No.8-2-580, Road No.8, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

Telangana – 500034.

….… Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opp.Party : M/s.N.Srinath Rao Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: M/s. Ganu & Co QUORUM:

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI …… PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN …… MEMBER (NON-JUDCIAL)

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX *******

Order : (Per Smt.Dr.G. Radha Rani, Hon’ble President

1. This petition is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, praying this Commission to set aside the order dated 24.02.2025 in CC.No.61 of 2024 on the file of District Consumer Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. In view of dismissal of FAIA.No.1049/2025, the appeal is rejected.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Court on this the 16th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

PRESIDENT MEMBER-NJ Dt: 16.02.2026

UC*

BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FAIA.NO.1049/2025 IN FA.NO.305/2025 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.61/2024, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD Between :

Care Health Insurance Co.Ltd., (Formerly known as Religare Health Insurance Ltd.)

Office at 5^th Floor, 19 Chawla House, Nehru Palace, New Delhi – 110 019. Represented by Managing Director.

…….. Petitioner/Appellant/Opp.Party And Sanjay Gupta, S/o.Late Ramakishan Gupta, Aged: 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.101, H.No.8-2-580, Road No.8, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

Telangana – 500034.

….… Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Opp.Party: M/s.N.Srinath Rao Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s. Ganu & Co QUORUM:

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI …… PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN …… MEMBER (NON-JUDCIAL)

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX *******

Order : (Per Smt.Dr.G. Radha Rani, Hon’ble President

1. This petition is filed by the Petitioner/Appellant/Opposite Party under Section 41(1) of Limitation Act to condone the delay of

81 days in filing the appeal.

2. The Corporate Legal Manager (Legal) of the Appellant Company filed an affidavit in support of the petition submitting that aggrieved by the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad in CC.No.61/2024 the present appeal is filed. The copy of the award was received by their office on third week of 2025. After receipt of the order, they requested their advocate to appear before the District Commission to give his opinion on the chance of filing the appeal. He submitted his opinion in the fourth week of March 2025. Thereafter, the Petitioner instructed the finance stream to prepare the statutory D.D. amount. However, the same was prepared in the name of the District Commission and the same was sent to their advocate. Their advocate intimated them that should be in the name of the Registrar, TSCDRC, Hyderabad. After the same was prepared, he obtained necessary approvals from the concerned officers for filing the appeal and sent the file to their advocate at Hyderabad for preparing the appeal. In the meantime, the time for filing the appeal expired. Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal which was neither wilful nor wanton but on account of the said circumstances and prayed to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent/Complainant. The Responde