IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 172/S/2014.                DATED : 29.03.2016.            

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PPRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &                     

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

COMPLAINANT                 : TAPASI ROY PATAWARI,

  W/O Late Rohini Roy Patawari,

  R/O Netaji Pally, Matangini Hazra Road,

  Opp. Bharati Sevak Sangha,

  P.O. – Rabindra Sarani, P.S.- Siliguri,

  Darjeeling, West Bengal – 734 006.

O.P.                           : IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE

  COMPANY,

  1^st Floor, Tradeview Oasis Complex,

  Kamala City, P.B. Marg, Lower Parel (W),

  MUMBAI – 400 013.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Santanu Chakraborty, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The case of the complainant is that Agent of the OP Insurance Company at the time of obtaining insurance policy filled up form needed for the approval of the policy and asked the complainant’s husband to sign the Policies document.  After few months, she obtained the policy.  In the month of February, 2012, her husband fell ill and he was taken to Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad.  During the treatment, complainant husband died on 10.01.2013.  This complainant submitted death benefit claim form on 13.02.2013.  OP’s man came and investigated the claim and finally repudiated the claim on 26.03.2013 stating non-disclosure of the history of treatment in the policy.  The documents have been filed as Annexure A, B, C, D, E & F.  Lastly, on 14.05.2013, the OP Company repudiated the claim finally.  It is also

Contd.....P/2

-:2:-

stated by the complainant that OP’s Agent/Advisor filled up the forms and made a verbal representation of the benefit of the policy and the complainant’s husband was only to sing the documents at the time of obtaining the said policy and the declaration as regards to the ailment and health condition were neither asked nor were discussed for any opinion.  Accordingly, the case is filed praying for necessary order for compensation and other benefits.            

OP has filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  The OP intends to repudiate the claim on ground of misrepresentation that at the time of filling up the proposal form, the complainant did not disclose his different ailments.  After death of the proposer the complainant lodged the claim which has been repudiated on the ground of misrepresentation of fact that the complainant was suffering from different disease at the time of filling proposal form.  It is also stated that the DLI was under treatment of some doctors as laid down in para-9 (i, ii & iii).  These are uneasiness of upper and lower region of abdomen, having high blood pressure 149/90, habit of pan chewing.  As per Dr. R.K. Dev, patient was suffering double vision, diabetes for more than 3 years and some nerve disease causing pain in eye, high blood pressure etc.  The OP says in spite of having above disease, the complainant made false declaration.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.

“In the nutshell the complainant’s claim is denied by OP on ground of suppression of material fact.” 

Points for decision

1.       Whether the case is maintainable under C.P. Act, 1986 ?

2.       Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case ?

3.       Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?               

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Copies of the insurance documents are annexed as Annexure A (Colly).

Contd.....P/3

-:3:-

2.       Copy of the Death Benefit Claim Form is annexed as Annexure B.

3.       Copy of the condolence letter dated 20/02/2013 is annexed as Annexure C. 

4.       Copy of the letter of repudiation for the Death Claim of the Complainant’s husband dated 26/03/2013 is annexed as Annexure D.

5.       Copy of the reply dated 04/05/2013 is annexed as Annexure E.

6.       Copy of the letter reiterating OP’s earlier decision of repudiation of the claim is annexure F.

OP has filed the following documents :-

1.       Photocopy of letter to Mr. Rohini Kumar Roy Patwari, from G.V. Nageswara Rao, dated 20.02.2012.

2.       Photocopy of Premium receipt, dated ........

3.       Photocopy of Policy Schedule, dated 20.02.12

4.       Photocopy of terms and conditions, IDBI Federal Life Incomesurance Endowment and Money Back Plan.

5.       Photocopy of general terms and conditions (non-linked products), issue 5.0 Effective, dated 01.03.09.

6.       Photocopy of Incomesurance proposal form.

7.       Photocopy of IDBI Federal Incomesurance and Money Back Plan – benefit illustration. 

8.       Photocopy of proposal amendment form, dated 24.01.2012. 

Complainant has filed evidence-in-chief.

OP has filed evidence in chief.

Complainant has written notes of argument.

OP has filed the written notes of argument.

Decision with reason.

Issue No.1 & 2.

          Issue No.1 & 2 are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

It appears from the cause title that complainant lives within the jurisdiction of Siliguri.  But OP has office at 1^st Floor, Tradeview Oasis Complex, Kamala City, P.B. Marg, Lower Parel (W), MUMBAI – 400 013.

Contd.....P/4

-:4:-

The OP is not resided within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as follows :-

(a)      the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carried on business or] has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b)      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

(c)      the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.  

Accordingly, the case does not come within the purview of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as laid down in Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

It is not necessary to discuss the other issues as the case is not maintainable in law.  

Hence, it is

                    O R D E R E D

That the Consumer Case No.172/S/2014 is dismissed without any cost.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.