Delhi

West Delhi

CC/18/285

BRIJ BHUSHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDRC ERGO INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

07 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO. 285/18

Sh.Brij Bhushan  Singh

R/B-293, Pocket –B,   Near Sector -15, J.J Colony ,  Bharat  Vihar , Kakrola ,New Delhi-110078                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Complainant

VERSUS

HDFC ERGO General Insurance  Co. Ltd.

Unit  No. -502, 504,506 5^th  Floor,   Mahanta Tower 54,   B-1,Janak Puri,   Community  Center,  Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058

 

DR. A. Singh ( Parth Hospital)H.No. 25, Vikas Nagar Rahhola Road,  Near MLA Office Uttam NagR  New Delhi-110059                                                                                                                                                                                              ....…. Opposite Parties

                                

O R D E R

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased on  line insurance policy  of OP-1  bearing No. 2864100220747000000 against  medical claim.  He further stated that   complainant fell ill  and obtained treatment from Parth  Hospital  from 16.09.2017  to 21.09.2017 and spent Rs. 45,264 on medical treatment .   The complainant  filed claim with  OP-1 which was rejected on 30.10.2017.

We have heard complainant and perused the record.  The complainant confronted with the issue to explain  as to how the Forum has the territorial jurisdiction  to try the present matter but unfortunately the complainant could not convince the court on territorial jurisdiction.    

Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act  provides 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 opposite party or each of the opposite parties, 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 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
3. the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

 

The bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it crystal clear that consumer complaint can be filed against opposite parties at the place where it actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or where cause of action wholly or in part arose.   

In the instant case the complaint is  resident  of Kakrola  New Delh which falls in the jurisdiction of Dwarka  New Delhi. Complainant has shown  in the  complaint the address of OP-1  as of  Janak Puri but  has  not placed on record any document which could show   that aforesaid policy was issued at the Janak Puri or the repudiation letter was issued from  any  place within  territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Complainant got   himself medically treated  from Parth Hospital  which  is also situated at Dwarka More.  It is true that where an article  has been purchased   online  the place of residence of complainant would confer the territorial jurisdiction. This was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Sonic Surgical  Vs.  National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009 STPL 16887 SC, and  in case titled Spice Jet Ltd. Vs. Ranju Aeryn  and Marine Container Services South Vs. Go Go Garments.

The aforesaid authorities of  Hon’ble Supreme Court make  it abundantly clear that  consumer fora  shall have no jurisdiction to entertain  the complaint if no cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction. 

The complainant  relied on authority  passed by Hon’ble High Court     in   case W.P.(C)11424/2016 & CM No. 44784/2016 Delhi State & District Consumer Courts  Practitioner Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs Lieutenant  Governor & Ors.   dated  01.01.2018  in which the Hon’ble High Court laid down  that   all  District Forums  shall ensure that they abide by the principles laid down by the State Commission  in  their  decision  as to the fact that  Delhi is one District for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction  of District Fora.  We have utmost respect for the decision of the Hon’ble High Court.

However, it appears that Hon’ble Delhi High Court was not

apprised of  the proceedings before Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Mahesh Ram Nath vs. The Secretary cum Commissioner (Transport) (Revision Petition No. 2816/2012) in which, Hon’ble National Commission has taken a very serious view and stated that in spite of notification promulgated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20/04/1999 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order. Thereafter the letter dated 07/11/2012 was issued by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to enforce the notification dated 20/04/1999 issued by Directorate of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

Further, in the matter of Prem Joshi vs Jurasik Park Inn [FA No. 488/2017], vide its order dated 01/11/2017,  Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Commission has held that the notification dated 20/04/1999 issued by Directorate of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is to be strictly complied with. Thus , while respecting the order passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, and by following the order passed by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in Prem Joshi case (supra), we are of the opinion that this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

          Keeping in view   the whole facts and discussion stated  above  we are of the opinion that this Fourm has no territorial jurisdiction to try this matter.  The complaint be returned to the complainant to be filed before the appropriate Forum  having territorial jurisdiction . Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to the record room. 

 

  Announced this___07^th  ___ day of __August_______ 2018.

 

   ( K.S. MOHI )                                                    (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                                    PRESIDENT                                                    MEMBER