A District Consumer Commission in Shimla directed Oriental Insurance to pay a homeowner Rs 1.25 crore after his insured ancestral house was completely destroyed in a 2023 fire. Rejecting the insurer’s objections over documents and co-ownership, the commission held that it had unfairly delayed settling a genuine claim.A bench of president Baldev Singh and member Nidhi Sharma also awarded Rs 75,000 for mental harassment, Rs 25,000 as litigation costs to the man, while terming the insurance company’s repeated demand for various documents from the homeowner as “delay tactics.”“Perusal of the documents clearly goes to show that the Tehsildar and Fire Officer have clearly mentioned that the house of the complainant was completely gutted in the fire incident, which took place on September 2, 2023. Hence, the demand of the opposite parties from the complainant regarding said documents is not justified for settlement of claim and appears to be just delay tactics because all the documents were made available by the complainant to the surveyor-cum-loss assessor,” the commission said on July 2.Also Read | ‘No home’ 13 years after booking flat, Punjab man wins Rs 44 lakh refundThe order stated that it is clear from the discussion that the loss to the house was caused during the currency of the policy and opposite parties were under obligation to settle the claim of complainant when the complainant has completed all the codal formalities and further the incident of fire and loss to the house has been established from report of Patwari, Tehsildar, Fire Officer along with other material on record.Rs 1.25 crore fire claim delayedThe dispute arose after a man insured his 30-room ancestral house in Shimla under an Oriental Insurance Bharat Griha Raksha policy for Rs 1.25 crore from December 9, 2022, to December 8, 2027.In September 2023, a major fire incident took place in the village of Daroti, in which the house of the complainant and all valuable items kept in the house were completely gutted by fire, along with the houses of other villagers.Although the insurer appointed a surveyor and verified the loss, it did not settle the claim, alleging non-submission of documents and disputing the complainant’s ownership share. According to him, independent assessments valued the loss at over Rs 2.70 crore and later Rs 2.93 crore, well above the insured amount, making him entitled to the full insured sum.Story continues below this adIt was stated that the house in question was about 60-70 years old and this fact has been verified by the local revenue officer as well as by the fire department. It was also stated that the complainant has completed all the codal formalities, but even then the genuine claim of the complainant was not settled by the opposite parties on one or the other pretext, for which reason the complainant issued a legal notice.Claiming that all required documents had already been furnished and that the insurer was deliberately delaying payment, the homeowner approached the commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.Insurer questions ownership shareOriental Insurance argued that the complainant had submitted an exaggerated estimate of the loss, whereas its surveyor assessed the net payable amount at Rs 80.17 lakh after applying depreciation and salvage deductions.It contended that the claim could not be processed because the complainant failed to furnish all requisite documents despite repeated requests. The insurer also claimed that the house was ancestral property with nine co-owners, and therefore the complainant was entitled to only one-ninth of the assessed amount. It denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and sought dismissal of the complaint.Story continues below this adDelay tactics by Insurer: OrderRejecting the insurer’s plea that the complainant was entitled to only a one-ninth share because the property was ancestral, the commission noted that the other family members had already stated they had no objection to the complainant receiving the insurance proceeds. It held that the insurer could not avoid its contractual liability by raising ownership disputes after issuing the policy.The commission further found the surveyor’s report to be self-contradictory, observing that while it acknowledged the insured value had increased under the policy, it simultaneously applied a flat 50 per cent depreciation and deducted salvage value without assigning any valid reasons.Also Read | Tenant uses ‘fake letter’ to claim IAS officer’s property, court refuses to cancel forgery caseSince the property had suffered a total loss, the commission held that the complainant was entitled to the entire insured amount of Rs 1.25 crore, and that the insurer’s refusal to settle the claim amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.TakeawayThis ruling strengthens consumer protection by holding that insurers cannot frustrate genuine claims through repeated document demands or post-policy ownership disputes. It reiterates that insurance companies must act fairly, honour contractual commitments, and avoid technical objections that delay settlements, reinforcing accountability in claim processing and adherence to IRDA guidelines.Story continues below this adConsumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Himachal Pradesh: 1800-180-8087) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.