BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR
Complaint No. 1260 of 2011.
Date of institution: 22.12.2011.
Date of decision: 23.6.2015
Smt. Jasvinder Kaur wd/o late Sh. Ranjeet Singh resident of Village Khanahmedpur, Post Office Alipur, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala. …Complainant.
Versus
- Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Opp. Madhu Petrol Pump, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
- Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No. 271, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Panchkula-131015, Haryana through its Manager.
- Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No. 45, Pocket No.1, NAC, Mani Majra, Chandigarh-160101 through its Branch Manager.
- Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006 through its Managing Director/Chairman. …Opposite parties.
CORAM: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT
SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. G.D.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for Opposite parties.
ORDER
Smt. Jaswinder Kaur complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the husband of complainant Sh. Ranjit Singh was insured with opposite parties vide policy bearing No. 0110421538, commenced from 9.8.2008 for Rs. 2,50,000/- and Smt. Dalip Kaur, mother of the deceased Ranjit Singh was nominee in the policy but Smt. Dalip Kaur has also expired on 18.7.2009. The policy in question was issued by Panchkula Branch Office. Life assured Sh. Ranjit Singh died on 10.9.2009 at home i.e. village Khanahmadpur, Post Office Alipur, Tehsil Brara, District Ambala due to heart attack. Complainant being widow lodged claim with the opposite party No.2 i.e. Panchkula Branch and completed all the requisite formalities but opposite party No.2 did not pay the claim amounts. Thereafter, complainant got issued a registered AD legal notice through her counsel Sh. G.D.Gupta, Advocate on 26.8.2011 which was duly replied by OP No.2 vide letter dated 28.9.2011 in which they have mentioned that they had treaded the above referred notice of the complainant’s counsel as representation against repudiation and Claim Review Committee strict to their earlier decision. After that complainant’s counsel Sh. G.D. Gupta issued reminder dated 13.10.2011 and 15.11.2011 only to the OP No.3 i.e. Chandigarh Branch, copy of which are Annexure C-9 and C-10. The cause of action arose in favour of the complainant after repudiation of death claim of her husband by the OP No.2 i.e. Panchkula Branch on 5.4.2010 and the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 5.4.2010 issued by OP No.2 i.e. Panchkula Branch. Hence, this complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeks directions to opposite parties to pay claim amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- being sum insured plus accrued bonus alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of death till realization, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/-.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through its counsel and filed written statement taking some preliminary objections regarding maintainability without territorial jurisdiction, cause of action and submitted that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. The true facts are that the husband of the complainant namely Ranjeet Singh had purchased a policy bearing No. 0110421538 for a sum assured of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the opposite party No.2 i.e. Panchkula Branch and after death of life assured, the complainant applied to get the claim and after investigation it was found that the life assured had the history of medication and psychiatric illness and was under treatment of Dr. Vikram Bharti from 9.5.2008 to 4.3.2009 which was confirmed from prescription but this fact was not disclosed by the life assured in his proposal form dated 30.9.2008 and he had deliberately concealed these facts from the opposite parties. The complainant had informed the opposite parties that the life assured died due to heart attack but during the course of investigation it was found that the death of the life assured was due to suicidal hanging. On the basis of investigation done by the opposite parties, the claim of the claimant was repudiated vide letter dated 5.4.2011 by OP No.2 i.e. Panchkula Branch. Being unsatisfied with the decision of the opposite parties, the complainant issued legal notice through her counsel which was placed as representation before the Claims Review Committee of the opposite parties and the same was also found meritless and was disposed off accordingly on the same ground that life assured has not disclosed the true facts in the proposal form and has concealed the same deliberately and willfully from the opposite parties, so the claim of the complainant again rejected vide letter dated 14.11.2011. It has been further stated that OP No.1 has been impleaded only just to create the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum otherwise OP No.1 has no concern whatsoever with the affairs of this complaint. On merit, also reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. To prove the case, counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents as Annexure C-1 to C-15 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit of Sh. Anil Walia, Divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company, as Annexure RX, Affidavit of Sh. H.S.Bansal, Investigator as Annexure RY and documents as Annexure R-1 to R-15 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
4. It is argued by the counsel for complainant that the opposite parties have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that the life assured had suppressed the material facts pertaining to the state of his health at the time of taking the insurance policy whereas the opposite parties have failed to place on file medical examination by their own doctor which is generally done by insurance company before issuance of insurance policy and referred case law LIC Vs. Bimla Devi reported in CPC 2004(10 page 247. Learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the opposite parties have recorded the statement of Baljit Singh neighbrourer of life assured who stated that the life assured died due to heart failure whereas the opposite parties have alleged concealment of medication and psychiatric illness and in this regard referred a case law titled as LIC vs. Sanjeev Mahendera Lal Shah reported in 1996(1) CPC page 528, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Commission as required in CPJ 1998(1) page 568.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that this Hon’ble Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the OP No.2 have its office at Yamuna Nagar and referred section 11(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act and also referred the case law 1977 PLR page 555 titled as Surinder Kumar Arora vs. The Bengal National Textile Mills Limited and further referred so many other rulings CPJ 2011)May) page 238 NC, CPJ 2000(II) page 461 UT Chandigarh, CPC 2004(1) page 248 Haryana, CLT 1994(2) page 502 Haryana, 1996(1) CPC page 433 Rajasthan, 1998(III) CPJ page 475 (HP), 2000(1) CPC page 38 Punjab 2001(1) CPJ page 187 Punjab, 1998(1) CPJ Page 568 (AP), 1996(1)CPC page 528 NC, 2001(I) CPJ page 316 Punjab, 1998(1) CPJ page 443 (Pondicherry) 2000(2) CPC page 650 NC.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued that deceased Ranjit Singh was under the treatment of psychiatric illness at the time of death which is proved from Annexure R-7 to R-15 prescription slip of Ranjit Singh and who has suppressed the alleged medication and psychiatric illness at the time of filling the proposal form and referred the case law titled as Surinder Kaur vs. ICICI prudential Life Insurance Company ltd. & Others 2015(1) CLT page 365 (Chhatisgarh State Commission) wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Repudiation on the ground of suppression of material facts by insured at the time of making proposal-Death due to cardiac arrest and severe myocardial infarction- Treatment taken for depression not disclosed- Plea of complainant that cause of death i.e. cardiac arrest had no nexus with the ailment not disclosed i.e. depression- Held- Plea is devoid of merit- Nexus or no nexus of the disease hardly matter- The question was of suppression of material facts and not as to whether the decease on account whereof the life assured died, had any nexus with his death or not- Claim rightly repudiated.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have argued that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as the policy in question was purchased by the life assured from Panchkula Branch and hence this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and referred the case law titled as Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company, 2010(1) CPC page 379 Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that insurance policy was obtained at Ambala covering risk of godown situated at Ambala. Fire destroyed insured stock lying down there- No cause of action arose at Chandigarh though company has branch office at Chandigarh-Commission at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter-
8. We have considered the contention of parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents carefully and minutely placed on the file. Before going into the merit of the case, firstly we are deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint and placed reliance upon section 11 of C.P. Act and judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC 2009(4) CPJ page 40. Per contra, complainant’s counsel submitted that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint because the opposite party has branch office at Yamuna Nagar, jurisdiction of District Forum has been given in section 11(2) of C.P.Act which reads as under:
11(2) “A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:
- The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [ carries on business or has a branchy office or] personally works for gain, or
- Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside or [carry on business or have a branch office] or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
- The cause of action, wholly or in partly arises.”
It is stand of complainant that opposite parties have its branch office at Yamuna Nagar and District Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint but law has been set at rest by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2009(4) CPC Page 40, wherein it has been held in para No.8 that’ Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2), the complainant would have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere and lead to bench-hunting. In our opinion, the expression branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) (b) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity (vide GP. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P.79).
9. Admittedly, life assured namely Sh. Ranjit Singh had purchased policy bearing No. 0110421538 from Branch Office Panchkula i.e. opposite party No.2 and life assured died at home i.e. village Khanahmadpur, PO Alipur, Tehsil Brara, District Ambala which is evident from death certificate, Annexure C-4. Annexure C-6 is copy of intimation regarding lodging the claim and from this it is evident that complainant Jaswinder Kaur had lodged her claim with the Branch Office at Panchkula and claim was also repudiated vide letter dated 5.4.2010 by the Branch Office Panchkula as per Annexure C-7. As per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case mentioned (supra), merely branch office does not confer any jurisdiction rather complaint can be filed where cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen. Hence, from going through the whole case file, we are of the considered view that no cause of action wholly or part of cause of action has arisen at Yamuna Nagar.
10. Consequently, in view of above discussed factual as well as legal position, we are of the considered view that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court/Forum, if he is so advised and in that eventuality, the period of litigation before this Forum shall not be counted towards the period of limitation for approaching appropriate court/Forum. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute (1995)3 SCC page 583. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court: 23.6.2015.
(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
PRESIDENT
(S.C.SHARMA )
MEMBER.
All the 1 to 7 pages of this judgment are
Checked and signed by me.
President
23.6.2015.
