JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The complainant Shri Srinivasa Venkatram took a policy ome Safe + Secure Mind Policyfrom the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. As per the policy, the petitioner was entitled to three EMIs on account of loss of his job. There is no dispute that he lost the job but the petitioner did not pay him three EMIs amounting to Rs.1,23,147/-. He was paid only Rs.43,893/-. Both the Fora below have decided the case in favor of the complainant. 2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the initial time he was paying EMIs @ Rs.41,049/- but he was paying the EMI at a lower sum subsequently. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is entitled to EMI as defined in Part 2 of the Schedule, which is reproduced as follows:-- MI refers to the EMI or pre EMI on the loan or the sum insured, whichever is lower, on the date of insured event. But he is unable to tell as to how much EMI he was actually paying. This is not a case of the petitioner in their written statement. Petitioner wants to produce some new evidence. Production of evidence at this late stage is not permissible. His case is vague, evasive and leads the Commission nowhere. The complainant has been held entitled to three months EMIs, which was allowed at the time of execution of policy. No ground. Dismissed.