Depression after spouse's death sufficient ground to condone delay in consumer complaint: Delhi Commission

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently held that depression following the death of a spouse can constitute sufficient cause for excusing delay in filing a consumer complaint [Priya Mehrotra v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.].

A Bench of Commission President Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Member Bimla Kumari made the observation while condoning a 250-day delay in a widow's complaint against Tata AIG General Insurance Company over the rejection of a medical insurance claim.

The Commission accepted that the complainant's treatment for clinical depression following her husband's death sufficiently explained the delay.

"On perusal of record, we find that there has been a delay of 250 days in filing the Complaint before the District Commission, for which, the Appellant has given sufficient cause, being that she was seeking treatment for clinical depression after the demise of her husband. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to condone the delay in filing the Complaint of the Appellant. Having condoned the delay, the District Commission is directed to decide the said Complaint on merits." the Commission observed.

The case arose after Priya Mehrotra's husband, Saurabh Mehrotra, a dentist, suddenly fell ill while working at his clinic on August 16, 2021.

He was initially taken to Kukreja Hospital in Delhi and subsequently referred to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.

According to the complaint, initial investigations did not reveal serious abnormalities. However, his condition deteriorated, and doctors subsequently informed his family that his liver had suffered severe damage.

He was later shifted to the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, where he died on October 27, 2021.

Mehrotra subsequently sought reimbursement of ₹25.73 lakh towards her husband's treatment under a Tata AIG health insurance policy.

However, the insurer rejected the claim in January 2022, stating that treatment for cirrhosis fell within the policy's two-year waiting period.

After unsuccessful representations to the insurer and the Insurance Ombudsman, Mehrotra approached the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service.

On February 2, 2026, the District Commission dismissed her complaint as time-barred.

Challenging the decision, Mehrotra submitted that she had suffered severe psychological distress following her husband's death and developed clinical depression requiring prolonged treatment and counselling.

The State Commission examined Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which prescribes a two-year limitation period for consumer complaints.

The Commission accepted the medical prescriptions produced by Mehrotra and concluded that sufficient cause existed to condone the delay.

It consequently set aside the District Commission's order and directed it to decide the complaint on merits within three months of its October 7 judgment.

The Commission did not decide whether Tata AIG was justified in rejecting the insurance claim.

Mehrotra was represented by Neha Gund & Associates.

[Read Judgment]