Calling the suppression of facts “deliberate” and “an attempt to mislead this Commission”, the J&K State Consumer Commission has dismissed a Rs 35 Lakh Insurance Claim for damage to a house in Srinagar, after the complainants, whose affidavits said no surveyor had been deputed, admitted in cross-examination that one had visited.
Srinagar: Two Srinagar householders who said no surveyor had been deputed to assess the damage to their house have lost their Rs 35 lakh insurance claim before the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which held that they had deliberately suppressed material facts about the inspection and had not come to it with clean hands [Muzaffar Ahmad Dar and Another v. National Insurance Company Limited and Another].
The order of October 15, 2026 came from a Bench of President (O) Nighat Sultana and Member Maheep Gupta, with Member Maheep Gupta authoring it.
Two versions of the surveyor’s visit
In their evidence affidavits of April 5, 2018, both complainants repeated that no surveyor had been deputed. In cross-examination, however, both admitted that the surveyor had visited their property three days after the loss, though they denied receiving any intimation letter. By the time written arguments were filed, they no longer claimed that no surveyor came. They instead attacked the survey report as improper, biased and unilateral.
It was the change of stand that weighed most with the Commission:
“What bothers us most is the written arguments filed by the Complainants contain a totally different story, without even bothering to inform this Commission the reasons for the change in their stand. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that not only the suppression of facts was deliberate but was also an attempt to mislead this Commission.”
Relying on the maxim that one who comes to equity must come with clean hands, the Commission held:
“A litigant who does not approach the court with clean hands and full disclosure of material facts is not entitled to be heard on merits or granted any equitable relief.”
What the complainants claimed
The complainants, Muzaffar Ahmad Dar and Ubaid Ahmed Dar of Batmaloo, Srinagar, approached the Commission in April 2016. They alleged that their residential house and household goods suffered damage of about Rs 35 lakh in the flood-like situation caused by heavy rainfall and snowfall on February 9, 2015.
Their case was that, despite timely intimation, National Insurance Company neither deputed a surveyor nor sought any details of the damage. They asked for a direction to the insurer to pay Rs 31.50 lakh, the sum insured under the policy, along with Rs 50,000 each towards mental torture and litigation costs.
The insurer’s reply, and a long wait
The insurance company said it had deputed an IRDA-authorised surveyor, M/s Andrabi Surveyors, and that it repudiated the claim after the complainants were informed in advance of the surveyor’s intended recommendation. Its written statement to this effect was filed on August 30, 2016.
The case then stalled when the Commission was wound up in October 2019. After its revival, it was taken up again on February 14, 2024. The insurer did not lead evidence, and its right to do so was closed on May 2, 2025. The complainants filed written arguments on November 10, 2025 and the insurer on April 1, 2026, after which the case was decided on merits.
Nothing on paper for Rs 35 lakh
The Commission also noted that the complainants had produced no documentary evidence to substantiate a loss of Rs 35 lakh. A claimant, it said, must not only show that the loss was caused by an insured peril within the policy period but must also prove the quantum claimed. The complaint was dismissed, with the parties left to bear their own costs.
Why the order matters
Consumer fora are meant to be quick and informal, yet the order shows that the clean-hands doctrine binds a complainant before them as it does in civil courts. A pleaded case contradicted by the complainant’s own admissions, followed by a change of ground without explanation, can end the complaint without any examination of the insurer’s repudiation.
The order also restates the burden in insurance disputes: even where the insurer has led no evidence, the insured must prove both the loss and its amount with documents. For a policyholder contesting a repudiation, the practical lesson is to disclose the surveyor’s visit and report at the outset and to challenge the assessment on its merits instead of denying it.
Case Title: Muzaffar Ahmad Dar and Another v. National Insurance Company Limited and Another [C.C. No. 37 of 2016]
Bench: Nighat Sultana, President (O), and Maheep Gupta, Member, Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar
Date of Order: October 15, 2026
For the Complainants: F.A. Bhat
For the Opposite Parties: N.A. Dendru