Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Four-day delay in depositing the amount directed by the SCDRC order dated 23.12.2025 condoned; operation of the District Commission's order dated 06.11.2025 stayed till disposal of the appeal pending before the State Commission; petition and pending applications disposed of on these terms.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders dated 27.02.2026 (NCDRC, SA/140/2026), 17.02.2026 (SCDRC, IA/60/2026 in FA/620/2025) and the Warrant of Attachment dated 12.12.2025 (DCDRC, EA/127/2024) should be quashed or set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

Upon condonation of the delay, the operation of the District Commission's impugned order dated 06.11.2025 is stayed till the disposal of the appeal pending before the State Commission.

Ratio / Principle

Since the amount ordered to be deposited by the SCDRC order dated 23.12.2025 had already been deposited, the four-day delay is condoned.

Key takeaways

The petition is disposed of on the above terms and pending applications also stand disposed of.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Consumer disputes / Article 227 interference - Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. petitioned the High Court of Delhi under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking quashing of (i) the NCDRC order dated 27.02.2026 in SA/140/2026, (ii) the SCDRC order dated 17.02.2026 in IA/60/2026 in FA/620/2025 vacating its interim stay, and (iii) the Warrant of Attachment dated 12.12.2025 issued by the DCDRC in EA/127/2024, all flowing from the District Consumer Commission-VI (New Delhi)'s order dated 06.11.2025 in CC No. 384/2024. The State Commission had stayed that order on 23.12.2025 subject to deposit of the decretal amount by way of FDR, and had vacated the stay on 17.02.2026 for non-compliance within time. The respondent (Priya Devi) filed no reply and the matter was heard by consent. Observing that the required deposit had in fact been made with a delay of only four (4) days, the learned Single Judge (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.) condoned the delay, stayed the operation of the District Commission's order dated 06.11.2025 till disposal of the appeal pending before the State Commission, and disposed of the petition and pending applications on those terms.

$~59

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18^th March, 2026

CM(M) 473/2026, CM APPL. 14300/2026 & CM APPL. 15257/2026 STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shishir Mathur and Ms. Muskan Tyagi, Advocates along with Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, AR of the petitioner. versus

PRIYA DEVI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Tusha Chawla and Mr. Shripal, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

ORDER (Oral)

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the following prayers:

“a. allow the present petition and issue an appropriate direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the Petitioner company in SA/140/2026; and/or

b. issue an appropriate direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the SCDRC against the Petitioner company in IA/60/2026 in FA/620/2025; and/or

c. issue an appropriate direction to quash and set aside the Warrant of Attachment dated 12.12.2025 issued by the Ld. DCDRC in EA/127 /2024;”

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:MANISHA CM(M) 473/2026 RAJPUT Signing Da te:1 9.03.2026 11:35:30

Page 1 of 3

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that she does not want to file any reply to the present petition.

Matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard. Record perused.

Vide order dated 23^rd December, 2025, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 06^th November, 2025, which reads as under:

“Subject to the deposit of the decretal amount with this Commission by way of FDR, the operation of the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- VI (New Delhi District) M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate,- New Delhi in CC No. 384/2024 is stayed till further orders.”

Vide order dated 17^th February, 2026, the aforesaid stay was vacated on account of non-compliance of the order dated 23^rd December, 2025 by the petitioner/judgment debtor. The said order reads as under:

“Since the appellant has failed to comply with the order dated 23.12.2025 within time, the stay granted vide order dated 23.12.2025 stands vacated.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount, as directed vide order dated 23^rd December, 2025, has already been deposited, with a delay of four (4) days.

Keeping in view the facts that the amount as ordered vide order dated 23^rd December, 2025 has already been deposited and there is only a delay of four (4) days and the same is condoned. Accordingly, the operation of the impugned order dated 06^th November, 2025 of the District Commission is

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 473/2026

Page 2 of 3

Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Da te:1 9.03.2026 11:35:30

stayed till the disposal of the Appeal as pending before the State Commission. The present petition is disposed of on the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

MARCH 18, 2026/ V/ABK

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:MANISHA CM(M) 473/2026 RAJPUT Signing Da te:1 9.03.2026 11:35:30

Page 3 of 3