As per the case facts, an insurance company challenged a decision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission had overturned a previous State Commission ruling, asserting that an ... insurance policy taken to cover risk is not for commercial purposes, and therefore, the policyholder qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The dispute involved claims for fire damage that occurred during civil unrest, which the insurance company had initially denied. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The question arose whether an individual who purchases an insurance policy to cover a foreseen risk is considered a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and if a complaint filed by such an individual is permissible, especially since the policy is for indemnification rather than profit generation. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the National Commission's finding. It affirmed that an insurance policy taken to cover risk is not for commercial purposes but for indemnification, meaning the insured is a consumer, and their complaint is maintainable for a review on its merits by the State Commission.