By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case of complainant is that the complainant is the widow of George Joseph who died on 8.3.2007. He had a life insurance policy from the first respondent dated 18.10.2006. The complainant lodged the claim before the first respondent. But the respondent repudiated the claim as per their letter dt. 12.7.07 on the ground of suppression of material information. The allegations of respondent are unfounded. The complainant approached the second respondent who advised the complainant to approach the grievance redressal committee of the respondent and the committee also did not honour the claim. The 2nd respondent also suggested to approach the Insurance Ombudsman but the Ombudsman is located in Kochi and since there is nobody to help she could not approach the Ombudsman. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments in brief are that the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant cannot be considered as a beneficiary. The complaint is barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. The present complaint has been filed after the lapse of two years from the date of alleged cause of action. The claim was rejected on 12th July 2007 but the complaint has been filed after the expiry of two years. The Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. No part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Forum. The proposal form was submitted and accepted outside the territorial limits of this Forum. Merely replying the respondent company is having its branch office within the territorial limits of this Forum it does not confer any jurisdiction unless cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Forum. The other averments in the version are not mentioning here.
3. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) If so was there any deficiency in service from respondents?
(3) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, Exts. P1 to P6 and Exts. R1 and R2.
5. Point No.1: The complaint is filed by the wife of insured who died on 8.3.07. She has filed the complaint as a nominee to the policy. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the complaint on many grounds. The first ground is the status of complainant. According to them, the complainant is not a consumer and also cannot be considered as a beneficiary. This view is not sustainable because the complainant is the wife and nominee of the deceased insured. Since the claim is for insurance amount the nominee can very well file the complaint. There is no need to make all the legal heirs in the party array. So the complainant is a consumer.
6. Another ground stated by the respondents is with regard to limitation. According to them the complaint is barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. The present complaint has been filed after the lapse of two years from the date of cause of action. As per Ext P2 on 12.7.07 the policy has been repudiated on the ground of suppression of material information. So the complaint should be filed within two years from the date of 12.7.07 as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. But the complaint is filed on 31.7.09. There is no application to condone the delay and it is not noticed by the Forum at that time. There is no application on the part of complainant to condone the delay of filing the complaint. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
7. The respondents also stated that the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. According to them, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Forum. It can be seen that the policy was issued by first respondent’s office in Mumbai. The repudiation of claim is also by first respondent’s office, Mumbai. The death of insured was in Chennai. There is not at all any cause of action or part cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Forum. The complainant made 2nd respondent in the party array to file complaint before this Forum. According to the complainant, the 2nd respondent advised her to approach the grievance committee and also to approach the Insurance Ombudsman. According to her these acts of 2nd respondent would entitle them to file complaint before this Forum. This view of complainant is not at all sustainable. It is held by our National Commission and reported in 2010 CTJ Page 3 that the expression “branch office” in the amended section of the Consumer Protection Act means the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. It will lead to absurd consequences of bench hunting if the complainant is allowed to file complaint any where in India where the branch office of complainee is situated. The branch office in the section means the branch office where the cause of action has arisen and it doesn’t mean that a complaint against the insurer could have been filed anywhere in India wherever it had a branch office. So the complaint is not maintainable because the forum has no territorial jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
8. In this case the complaint was admitted without going to the question of jurisdiction. Even if the respondents raised the above said contentions they did not raise it before the Forum at the time of filing of the version. If they have raised it much earlier the Forum definitely consider the same at that time. Now the entire evidence is over and the complainant is also examined. The Forum cannot adjudicate the complaint on merit because it will lead to irregularity. In Rajkumar V. M/s. M.G. Motors it is held by our National Commission and reported in 2012(3) CPR (NC)352 that the question of jurisdiction can be decided and can be raised at any stage even at execution stage. The similar view was taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Soni Surgicals V. National Insurance Company Ltd. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 5th day of January 2013.
