Hdfc Life Insurance Company limited Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

HDFC Life Insurance Company limited, 11**^ Floor, Lodha Excelus, Appllo Mills Compound, N,M Joshi Road , Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400011 Represented by its Managing Director

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Represented by its Registrar, 1®* Floor, Civil Supplies Office, Near SIRIS Auto Nagar, Vijayawada.

¶14

Smt. Banda Sri laxmi, W/o Bhavani Prasad (Late), Aged 57 years, R/o Door no.2-3-80. Fait no.a-1. Ground Floor, Srinivasa Residency, Old age Home Street, Kanuru 520007, Vijayawada NTR District Andhra Pradesh

¶15

The Senior Manager, HDFC 1 St floor, Sri Hah Towers, Beside Mary

¶16

Stella College NH -5, Eluru Road , Vijayawada 08

...RESPONDENTS

J '

/

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more one in the nature of a certiorari, a. By calling for the records pertaining^{toFA.I.A.No.1455of2024in} F.A.No.775 of 2024 against C.C.No.202 of 2022 dated 02.07.2025 on the file of First Respondent and set aside the same, b. Consequently also the F.A.I.A.No.1455 of 2024 by condoning the delay of 113 days and direct the 1®‘ Respondent to Restore the F.A.No.775 of 2024 to hear the appeal on merits c. To award the costs of this Writ petition.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the award/order dated;22.08.2024 in C.C.No.60 of 2022 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-ll, Vijayawada , till the disposal of the F.A. 775 of 2024 by the 1®‘ Respondent.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. VARA LAKSHMI CHEKURI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:—

¶25

The Court made the following order:

¶26

1

¶27

HCJ & RRR, J W.P.No. 14449 of 2025

¶28

[3446]

¶29

APHC010284422025

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO: 14449/2025

¶37

Between:

¶38

1.HDFC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 11TH FLOOR,^LODHA EXCELUS, APPLLO MILLS COMPOUND, N,M JOSHI ROAD , MAHALAXMI, , MUMBAI 400011 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶39

...PETITIONER

¶40

AND

¶41

1.THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL SUPPLIES OFFICE,^EAR SIRIS AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA.

¶42

2.SMT BANDA SRI LAXMI, W/0 BHAVANI PRASAD (LATE) AGED⁵⁷ YEARS, R/0 DOOR NO.2-3-80, FALT NO.A-1. GROUND FLOOR, , SRINIVASA RESIDENCY, OLD AGE HOME STREET, KANURU 520007, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH

¶43

3.THE SENIOR MANAGER, HDFC 1ST FLOOR. SRI HAH TOWERS BESIDE MARY STELLA COLLEGE NH -5, ELURU ROAD VIJAYAWADA 08

¶44

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶45

2

¶46

HCJ&Rrrj W.P. No. 14449 of 2025

¶47

Petition under Article c rcumsfances stated in the affidavit ffed ,hi 'he Pleased tomay be pleased to issoe 1 1m 1 '^‘^h Court may be nature of a certiorari a b! r T one in the pertaining to FA.I.A.No.1455of2024’in F.A No 775 1?20^4 uateo 02.07.2025 on the file of fL o C C.No.202 of io22 Consequently also the F.A.I.a.No I4I5 If 2olfh' h days and direct the 1st Respondent to fillf '''' “""oalhQ^{thedelayof113} hear the appeal on merits c. To award the cnT I t ^024^to (ANOMof^ award the costs of this Writ petition and^pass

¶48

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated the High Court may be pleased t award/order dated:22.or2024 1^“'^''®' poceedings in pursuance of the in C.C.N0.6O Consumer Disputes Redressal ef 2022 on the file of District Of the F.A. 775of2024 by the 1®‘Commission -II, Vijayawada , till the disposal Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶49

1.VARALAKSHMI CHEKURI

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶51

¶52

3

¶53

HCJ & RRR, J W.P.No. 14449 of 2025

¶54

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶55

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

¶56

Heard Smt. Ch. Vara Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶57

The 2'^'^ respondent had initiated a complaint bearing^C.C.No.202 of 2022 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes^{RedressalCommission-} II, Krishna District, at Vijayawada, against the petitioner herein and respondent No.3.

¶58

The case of the 2'"'^ respondent was that the 3^^ respondent^had advanced a housing loan to the husband of the 2"^^ respondent and had required the husband of the 2"^ respondent to obtain a Life Insurance policy from the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the husband of the petitioner had obtained a Life Insurance policy from the petitioner^{hereinforanassuredsum} of Rs.22,48,884/- for which a single premium of Rs.2,48,889/- was paid. The petitioner, after considering all the required documents, that had been submitted by the husband of the petitioner, and the^{resultsofthemedicaltests} which were conducted as per the requirement of the petitioner, had accepted the proposal and issued a life policy. The policy was for a term of 10 years from i.e., from 30.09.2020 to 29.09.2030. During the pendency of this policy, the husband of the 2^^ respondent passed away on 01.12.2020.

¶59

The petitioner had rejected the claim of the 2"'^ respondent^onthe ground that there was suppression of material information in the proposal

¶60

4

¶61

HCJ & RRR, J W.P. No. 14449 of 2025

¶62

form, at the time of the application for the policy. After correspondence with the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, for an amount of Rs.22,48,884/- being paid to the 2- respondent, along with other reliefs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by order dated 02.07.2024, allowed in part the claim of the 2"^ respondent. By this order, the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.22,48,884/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum; Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards costs of litigation expenses.

¶63

5- The petitioner, being aggrieved by this award of compensation. had approached the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada, by way of F.A.No.775 of 2024. As there was a delay of 113 days in preferring the appeal, the petitioner also moved F.A.I.A.No.1455 of 2024 for condonation of delay of 113 days in preferring the appeal.

¶64

The case of the petitioner was that there was a delay in contacting the local counsel to get the status of the complaint before the District Commission and further delay in receiving the certified copy of the order and other material papers to proceed further in the matter. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that such grounds do not make out any case for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal , under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On this basis, the State Consumer Disputes

¶65

b

¶66

HCJ & RRR, J W.P.No. 14449 of 2025

¶67

Redressal Commission had dismissed F.A.I.A.No. 1453, by order dated 19.03.2025.

¶68

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached^thisCourt by way of the present writ petition.

¶69

The case of the petitioner is that the delay in preferring the appeal was due to illness of the counsel, who was suffering^{fromseverearthritis.The} petitioner contends that the delay should have been condoned so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute the appeal on merits and dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay would^{amounttoviolationof} principles of natural justice.

¶70

The petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy of approaching the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In view of the adequate alternative remedy being available, this Court does not deem it appropriate to take up the matter.

¶71

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. There^{shallbenoorderasto} costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed.

¶72

Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,