Haryana

StateCommission

A/467/2018

SUNITA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

21 Feb 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.467 of 2018

                                                Date of the Institution: 17.04.2018

                                                Date of Decision: 21.02.2019

 

 

Sunita wife of Naresh Kumar, resident of Village Mandan, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan).

 

…..Appellant-Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1.      Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, BSLI City Building Near Old Court Road, Narnaul, Branch Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited.  

 

2.      Managing Director, Registered Office Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, One India Bulls Center, Tower 1, 15^th and 16^th Floor, Juptier Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013.

 

…Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

 

               

                                     

Present:-    Shri Shashi Kant Gupta, counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri S.C. Thatai, counsel for the respondents.

 

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          Aggrieved of the dismissal of her complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has filed the instant appeal.

2.      While passing the impugned order, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul held that the complainant had totally failed to prove that deceased Naresh Kumar died due to heart attack and also as the learned District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

3.      According to the appellant, learned District Forum had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as the Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited had its Branch Office at Narnaul. However, it is undisputed that the complainant lived in District Alwar (Rajasthan) and the proposal form was submitted with the Branch Office at Rohtak. Further, the death certificate had been issued by the Gram Panchayat, Village Mandhan, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar (Rajasthan). As such, learned District Forum, Narnaul had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Poonam Shahi & Ors., Appeal No.38 of 2008 decided on 16.03.2016, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that merely because the Insurance Company had a Branch Office at Muzaffarpur, was not sufficient to clothe State Commission at Patna with jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as cause of action arose only at Assam. In coming to the said conclusion, the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 135 and the relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are reproduced here below:

"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 is 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 in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression `branch office' in the amended Section 17(2) 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 G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]"

 

          Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in M/s. Medanta The Medicity Versus V.S. Tyagi, 2017(3) C.P.J. 591, wherein it was held that the existence of registered office of the OP at Delhi stood duly admitted by the opposite party and therefore the complaint could be filed at Delhi as well even if the patient had died at hospital in Gurgaon and the hospital had also their corporate office at Defence Colony, New Delhi. However, on perusal of the said judgment, it is made out that part of cause of action had also arisen in Delhi and therefore the complainant could file a complaint at Delhi. However, in the present appeal, no cause of action had arisen at Narnaul. The deceased belonged to District Alwar in Rajasthan and the husband of the complainant, who was suffering from cancer had died at Rohtak. No cause of action had arisen at Narnaul and therefore no fault can be found with the decision arrived at by the learned District Forum that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

4.      As regards the concealing of true and material facts by the deceased at the time of obtaining the insurance policy in question, it may be noticed that the complainant’s husband was suffering from throat cancer, which fact has not been rebutted by the complainant by placing on file any cogent evidence. Even in the absence of post mortem report or any death certificate issued by any hospital or any doctor, it could not be presumed that life assured died due to heart attack as alleged by the complainant.

5.      In view of the above, no case is made for any interference in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.  However, the complainant would be at liberty to move the appropriate District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for redressal of her grievances, if so advised.

 

       

Announced 21.02.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.