Delhi

StateCommission

A/368/2018

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Aug 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Hearing: 24.08.2018

                                                                                                              

                                                                   Date of decision:04.09.2018

 

 

First Appeal No. 368/2018

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Brij Bhushan Singh

R/o B-293, Pocket-B,

Near Sector-15,

J.J. Colony, Bharat Vihar,

Kakrola, New Delhi-78                                                             ….Appellant

 

VERSUS

 

1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Unit No. 502, 504, 506, 5^th Floor,

Maratha Tower-54

B-1, Janakpuri Community Centre,

New Delhi-58

2. Dr. A. Singh

Director Parth Hospital

House No. 25, Vikas Nagar, Ranholla Road,

Near MLA Office, Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-59….Respondent

 

 

HON’BLE  SH. O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (GENERAL)

 

 1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?            Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                   Yes

 

Present:       Sh. Manoj Kumar Saxena, Counsel for the Appellant

                  

PER:           ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (G)

JUDGEMENT

1.           Sh. Brij Bhushan Singh, resident of New Delhi, has preferred this appeal before this Commission (for short the appellant) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) assailing the orders dated 07.08.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (West) in C-285/18, dismissing the complaint in the ground of territorial jurisdiction. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Dr. A. Singh of Parth Hospital have been arrayed as Respondents in this appeal.
2.           Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are these.
3.           The appellant had purchased a mediclaim policy online from HDFCERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. at Stellar I.T. Park, Tower-1, 5^th Floor, C-25, Sector62, NOIDA, U.P. bearing number 2864100220747000000 against medical claim. On 16.09.2017, during the period of policy, he had fallen sick and consequently he was treated at Parth Hospital. Claim was preferred which claim was not accepted leading to filing of complaint before the District Forum. The Forum, keeping in view the whole facts and circumstances of the case, observed that they do not have territorial jurisdiction to try this matter and ordered to return the complaint. The order so passed has been assailed in appeal before this Commission.
4.           The appellant has submitted that the branch office of the respondent company since is at Janakpuri New Delhi, the District Forum has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint.
5.           Point for adjudication in this complaint/appeal is whether the District Forum enjoys the territorial jurisdiction to hear this Complaint. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 posits as under:

 

…11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum:- (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.

1. the OP or each of the OPs, where there are more than on, 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, or
2. any of the OPs, 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 OPs 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
3. the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

 

6.           On a plain reading of the provision of the Act it is manifestly clear that the territorial jurisdiction of a Forum is determined by following two factors, namely,

 

1. place where the branch office of the OP is located, and secondly,
2. place where the cause of action arose.

 

The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Lasa Footwear as reported in IV [2012] CPJ 821 (NC) has held that the expression branch office in amended Section 17 (2) would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen.

7.           The District Forum has very succinctly brought out reasons setting out grounds as to why they lack the territorial jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of this complaint. We do not find any infirmity in the orders impugned herein.
8.           Accordingly we uphold the orders and passed and dismiss the appeal in limine.
9.           Ordered accordingly. A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. A copy of the order be forwarded to the District Forum for information. File be consigned to records.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (GENERAL)                MEMBER (JUDICIAL)