Complaint is filed on 10-12-2009
Compliant disposed on 8-4-2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
::AT:: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K. DEVI PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.B., PRESIDENT
SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.,LL.M.,PGDCA (CONSUMER AWARENESS), MEMBER
SRI. K. CHANDRA MOHAN RAO, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 211 OF 2009
Between:
Sheru Laxmi, W/o. Rajamallu, Age 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1-61, Adavi Srirampur, V/o. Mutharam mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Complainant
AND
- The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., H.No. 2-128 & 129, Devikishan Complex, Rajiv Chowk, Karimnagar -1.
- The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 54-1, Adjacent Bharathi Supermarket, Hasthampatty, Salem-636007, Tamilnadu.
- The General Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. & Head Office, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411 006.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 29-3-2011, in the presence of Sri T.Venugopal and P. Srinivas, Advocates for complainant and Sri P.Ashok, Advocate for opposite parties, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum passed the following:
:: ORDER::
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties No.1 to No.3 to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/-towards compensation, damages and mental agony to the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant mother Aithu Prameela insured her life under policy no.0096897987 for Rs.2,50,000/- with opposite parties no.1 to no.3 on payment of an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 12.6.2008. Unfortunately on 31.7.2008 the said Aithu Prameela died leaving behind the complainant as her legal heir. After death of her mother, the complainant approached the opposite parties with all required documents but the opposite parties rejected the claim on the ground that the age of deceased (life insured) and family history was misrepresented. There is no mistake on the part of deceased as the deceased was an illiterate and she put thumb impression on all forms and furnished the information to the agent/advisor of opposite parties. The complainant several times approached the opposite parties for the payment of sum assured. But all her efforts were in vain. Hence, the complainant got issued a Legal Notice to settle the claim but the opposite parties neither replied nor paid the amount.
3. Vexed with the negligent attitude of opposite parties no.1 to no.3, the complainant approached this Forum for a direction to opposite parties to pay the amount.
4. Opposite Party No.1 filed counter denying the averments made in the complaint and admitted that the issuance of Policy bearing no.0096897987. The opposite party no.1 further submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as the policy was issued by the Branch at Salem and the Karimnagar Branch has nothing to do with the issuance of the policy. Only to file the complaint before this Forum, the Karimnagar Branch as been made as O.P.No.1.
5. The opposite party no.1 received the death intimation of the life assured and then the opposite party no.1 appointed the CHARTEHOUSE DETECTIVE SERVICES to enquire about the cause of death of life assured. As per the said report the death of life assured was due to Sunstroke and died in the Mamtha Hospital, Godavarikhani on 31.7.2008. The age of the life assured stated in the proposal form as 43 years but the age of her daughter was 40 years as per the certificate issued by President, Gram Panhchayat, Adavi Srirampur Village of Mutharam Mandal.
6. The complainant intentionally did not disclose her real age in her proposal form Dt: 22.3.2008 and shown her date of birth as 4.10.1965 which is false. Hence, after careful examination of the claim forms, other documents and medical reports, item no.9 of the policy document as well as under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, the claim of the complainant was repudiated. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7. Opposite Party No.2 & No.3 adopted the counter filed by Opposite Party No.1.
8. Both the parties have filed their Proof Affidavits reiterating the averments made in the complaint and counter respectively. The documents filed on behalf of complainant are marked as Ex.A1 to A9 and the documents filed by opposite parties are marked as Ex.B1 to B10.
9. Ex.A1 is the office copy of Legal Notice issued by counsel for complainant to opposite parties Dt: 18.9.2009. Ex.A2 is the Repudiation letter addressed to complainant Dt: 8.10.2009. Ex.A3 is the photo copy of rejection letter from opposite parties addressed to complainant Dt: 2.4.2009. Ex.A4 is the photo copy of letter from opposite parties addressed to complainant Dt: 12.6.2008. Ex.A5 is the photo copy of proposal form of complainant. Ex.A6 is the photo copy of Initial Unit Statement of opposite parties Dt: 14.6.2008. Ex.A7 is the photo copy of letter from Village President of Adavi Srirampur addressed to opposite parties. Ex.A8 is the photo copy of letter from Village President of Adavi Srirampur addressed to opposite parties mentioning the age of deceased Dt: 11.8.2009. Ex.A9 is the photo copy of Death Certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Adavi Srirampur Village Dt: 13.8.2008.
10. Ex.B1 is the original Proposal Form. Ex.B2 and A4, Ex.B3 & A3, B4 & A2 are one and the same documents. Ex.B5 is the Investigation Report Dt: 26.3.2009. Ex.B6 is the photo copy of Household Card of deceased. Ex.B7 is the photo copy of Identity Card of complainant. Ex.B8 is the photo copy of cover page of SBH Pass Book of complainant. Ex.B9 is the photo copy of Household Card of complainant. Ex.B10 & A8 are one and the same documents.
11. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, if so, what relief can be awarded to the complainant?
12. A perusal of the records and documents reveal that the complainant’s mother i.e. Prameela obtained Insurance Policy from opposite parties for Rs.2,50,000/- on 12.6.2008 bearing no.0096897987 having paid the premium of Rs.25,000/-. She nominated her daughter the complainant as nominee.
13. Subsequently the complainant’s mother, the insured died on 31.7.2008 at Adivi Srirampur as evidenced by Ex.A9 entitling her daughter the complainant, to claim the assured amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as nominee.
14. Accordingly the complainant sent her claim letter to the opposite parties along with all documents for settlement. But her claim was repudiated by opposite party no.3 vide letter Dt:2.4.2009 Ex.A3 on the ground that the age and family history of the life assured were mis-presented in the proposal form resulting in under statement of age by atleast 18 years.
15. Peeved at this rejection of her claim the complainant sent a Legal Notice Dt: 18.9.2009 Ex.A1 denying the allegations raised in the earlier letter Ex.A3 with the same demand for settlement of her claim, to which opposite party no.2 replied vide its letter Ex.A2 stating that the complainant claim was reexamined by the Claims Review Committee of opposite party Company which too confirmed the earlier decision of repudiation on the same ground of misrepresentation of age and family history.
16. As a last resort the complainant filed this complaint praying for justice alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
17. Opposite Party no.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and raised the preliminary question of maintainability, stating that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter as no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. This contention sounds credible and valid as the complainant has not placed on record any document to show that any transaction took place with the branch office of opposite party no.2 & 3 within the district of Karimnagar for justifying the plea of cause of action to have been accrued within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Mere receipt of letter of repudiation in Karimnagar district does not constitute the accrual of cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Since the complainant’s mother the life assured obtained the said policy from opposite party at Salem (Tamil Nadu) and paid the premium of Rs.25,000/- to opposite party no.2 at Salem vide Ex.A4 this Forum is barred from adjudicating upon this dispute under Sec 11 (2) (b) of C.P.Act, 1986.
18. As reported in CTJ December 2011 the National Commission observed that for a cause of action arising in Haryana State Commission, Haryana will have jurisdiction. Filing complaint before UT Chandigarh Commission, because the opposite party has branch office at Chandigarh will lead to absurd consequences of Bench Hunting and Forum hopping (NCDRC, Page 269).
19. To buttress this contention the opposite party filed some citations of decisions of National Commission in Indian Air Lines Corporation and Ors. Vs Consumer Education & Resort Society Ahmedabad and Ors., Miscelleneous Petition No.42, 43/1990.
20. It observed, In our opinion it would be much more reasonable to assume that in respect of complainants instituted against a corporation, Parliament intended that the Forum before which a complaint is instituted, should have either the nexus or accrual of cause of action within its territory or the location of the principal office of corporation, within its territory. We would therefore, hold that unless one of these tests is satisfied the institution of the complaint before the Consumer Redressal Forum, whether it be District Forum or State Commission, will not have jurisdiction as such the Forum cannot for adjudicate upon such complaint (Para 6).
21. In a case – A Resident of Goa Vs Indian Air Lines, Resident of Goa taking a flight Indian Air Lines to Lucknow Via Bombay, Flight cancelled at Bombay, suffered loss – claim filed in Ahmedabad where Indian Air Lines had an office.
22. Similarly another Resident of Calcutta – got injured in flight from Bombay to Calcutta claim filed in Gujarat – State Commission entertained them – whether correct ? (No). As no part of cause of action arose in Ahemedabad.
23. Held : (for first claim) It will be noticed that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the State of Gujarat. The cancelled sector of the flight was one originating from Bombay and cause of action, if any, can therefore, be said to have arisen only in Bombay. The complaint however has been filed before the State Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad on the ground that the Indian Air Lines has an office at that place (para 7).
24. Held: (for second claim) in this case also no part of the cause of action had arisen within the State of Gujarat. The flight in question was from Bombay to calculate and the passenger is a permanent resident of Calcutta. The Forum at Ahmedabad has been chosen by him only because the Indian Air Lines has an office at Ahmedabad (para 8).
25. Held: (Finally) for the reasons indicated above we are clearly of the opinion that, the State Commission acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the 2 complaints and proceeding to adjudicate upon them. We accordingly allow these 2 petitions and direct that the 2 complaint- petitions – complaint petition no.4 of 1990 and complaint petition no.5 of 1990 pending before the State Commission of Ahmedabad will stand dismissed on the ground that the complaint petitions are not maintainable before the State Commission, Gujarat.
26. In the light of the above decisions we hold that this Forum is barred from exercising jurisdiction to adjudicate upon these disputes.
27. The counsel for the opposite parties in furtherance of his contentions, with regard to misstatement of age by complainant’s mother, the life assured cited some decisions of higher Commissions in defence of repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant.
28. But since the preliminary question of maintainability is answered in the negative, we do not feel expedient to go into the merits of the case as it would be a futile exercise.
29. In the result the complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to file complaint before appropriate Forum having jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, and to the parties to the litigation to bear their own costs.
Dictated to Stenographer and transcribed by her, after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 8th day of April, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE
FOR COMPLAINANTS:
Ex.A1 is the office copy of Legal Notice issued by counsel for complainant to opposite parties Dt: 18.9.2009.
Ex.A2 is the Repudiation letter addressed to complainant Dt: 8.10.2009.
Ex.A3 is the photo copy of rejection letter from opposite parties addressed to complainant Dt: 2.4.2009.
Ex.A4 is the photo copy of letter from opposite parties addressed to complainant Dt: 12.6.2008.
Ex.A5 is the photo copy of proposal form of complainant.
Ex.A6 is the photo copy of Initial Unit Statement of opposite parties Dt: 14.6.2008.
Ex.A7 is the photo copy of letter from Village President of Adavi Srirampur addressed to opposite parties.
Ex.A8 is the photo copy of letter from Village President of Adavi Srirampur addressed to opposite parties mentioning the age of deceased Dt: 11.8.2009.
Ex.A9 is the photo copy of Death Certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Adavi Srirampur Village Dt: 13.8.2008.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 is the original Proposal Form.
Ex.B2 and A4, Ex.B3 & A3, B4 & A2 are one and the same documents.
Ex.B5 is the Investigation Report Dt: 26.3.2009.
Ex.B6 is the photo copy of Household Card of deceased.
Ex.B7 is the photo copy of Identity Card of complainant.
Ex.B8 is the photo copy of cover page of SBH Pass Book of complainant.
Ex.B9 is the photo copy of Household Card of complainant.
Ex.B10 & A8 are one and the same documents.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
