Delhi

New Delhi

CC/251/2017

Sudha Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

05 Aug 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./251/2017                                                               Dated:

 

In the matter of:

 

Smt. Sudha Sachdeva

B-48, Rajanbabu Road

Adarsha Nagar Delhi-110033

…....COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd.

2^nd Floor, DCM Building,

Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001

 

Regional Office

Plot No-6, 1^st Floor,

Near Metro Pillar No-81,

Main Pusa Road , Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005.

                                                                                                                                                                 ….... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

 

MEMBER : NIPUR CHANDNA

 

ORDER

The gist of the complaint is that the complainant got issued Medical Insurance No. 2847/ 00002702/000/02 for the insured period w.e.f

20.10.2014 and got renewed and is valid till 19.10.2017. The policy  is cashless and for prefixed medical facility as well as emergency . She for some knee problem contacted panel hospital Sundri Lal Jain Charitable Hospital  where she was advised Knee Surgery having estimated cost of around 1,75,000/- . The administration of the Hospital sent proposal to the OP and date of admission fixed . The OP rejected the claim without any valid ground. Prayer for allowing / approval of cashless estimate to the Hospital for treatment for Rs. 1,75,000/- and compensation for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- made.

                 The documents filed with the complaint shows that the policy was issued from Chennai and denial of claim too is from Chennai office of OP. The hospital consulted is located at Kanjhwala Road, Delhi – 86 and the other Hospital is in Adarsh Nagar, Delhi – 33. The legal notice sent by complainant  to the OP is at its Chennai and Karol Bagh , New Delhi – 05 .

We have heard counsel for complainant on the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and considered the material placed before us with provision of law.

                 We are of the considered view that this Forum does not have the  territorial  jurisdiction to entertain the compliant as neither the relevant office of the OP is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum , nor the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.     

           We are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.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 Ld.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]

 

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, we direct the complaint to be returned to the complainant for filing it before appropriate and competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant along with documents filed along with the court fee certificate be returned to the complainant against receipt after obtaining a copy of the same and then file be consigned to the record room.

 

From the foregoing facts it is clear that neither the cause of action nor the policy was taken from  place located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction and in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement (Supra). The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post.

Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.  Pronounced in open Forum on________________  

 

 

                                                                          (S K SARVARIA)

                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

                               (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                               (H M VYAS)

                                       MEMBER                                                               MEMBER