Haryana

Jind

CC/306/2012

Ram Phal - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Ashwani Sharma

24 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 306 of 2012
                            Date of institution:-11.10.2012
                            Date of decision:-28.6.2016
Ram Phal Sharma son of Sh. Badha Singh resident of village Kithana, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
Life Corporation of India through its Divisional Manager, Karnal.
Branch Manager Life Corporation of India, Jind. 
                                          …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. Ashwani Sharma Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. R.S. Sindhwani Adv.for opposite parties. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that wife of  complainant  namely late Bimla Devi was the subscriber of a Jeevan Sanchayy Plan (without profits) vide policy No.171582113 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- date of commencement 28.9.1998 and date of maturity 28.9.2013. The complainant is the nominee of the above said policy in 
            Ram Phal Sharma Vs. LIC
                    …2…
question.  The complainant’s wife had died on 5.2.2009 in PGIMS, Rohtak due to heart attack.  The wife of complainant has already deposited the premium of the above said insurance policy and no amount was due and outstanding towards her on the date of her death. The complainant informed the opposite parties immediately regarding the death of his wife. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties and submitted all the necessary documents. The  complainant filed an earlier  complaint No.480 of 2010 which was decided on 27.7.2011 by this Forum directing the opposite parties to settle the claim of the complainant within two months but the opposite parties have not complied with the order of this Forum. The opposite parties have failed to produce evidence in the earlier complaint to show that the deceased wife of complainant was suffering from tuberculosis four years back and history of B/N since childhood.  The opposite parties have informed the complainant that his claim already stands repudiated vide letter dated 30.3.2010. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay the insured claim amount of above said policy  along with all the accrued benefits, a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.   
2.      Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the written reply agitating that the complainant has got no cause of action and   locus standi  to file the present complaint and  this Forum 
            Ram Phal Sharma Vs. LIC
                    …3…
has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is contended that  the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on 30.3.2010 on account of that deceased life assured having suppressed the true and correct information about her illness and she has not revealed any fact  about her health to the opposite parties, whereas she was suffering from T.B. four years back and history of B/N as per form No.3816 issued by PGI, Rohtak which was prior to revival date i.e. 12.5.2007 and she did not disclose this material fact in her DGH (Declaration of good health). The deceased life assured has withheld the material information regarding her health at the time of revival of policy. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on well founded reasons on 30.3.2010. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with special compensatory cost of Rs.25,000/-  is prayed for.  
3.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of repudiation letter dated 30.3.2010 Ex. C-2, copy of policy schedule Ex. C-3, copy of  detail amount of installment Ex. C-4, copy of letter Ex. C-5, copy of letter dated 1.3.2012 Ex. C-6, copy of letter dated 23.8.2011 Ex. C-7 copy of death certificate  Ex. C-8, copy of order dated 27.7.2011 Ex. C-9 and copy of order Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the  affidavit of Sh. Surinder Kumar, AO Ex. OP-1, copy of repudiation letter dated 30.3.2010 Ex. OP-2, copy of certificate of hospital treatment Ex. OP-3, copy of policy schedule Ex. OP-4, copy 
            Ram Phal Sharma Vs. LIC
                    …4…
of proposal form Ex. OP-5 and copy of document Ex. OP-6 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard the arguments of  Ld. Counsels of all parties and perused the record placed on file. Before going on merit of the case the forth most question arises before us whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint or not? The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as  the branch office of the Life Insurance Company is also situated at Jind and opposite parties is  doing their business and working for gain at Jind.  
5.    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that this Forum  hasgot no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as the policy was purchased from Hisar-II branch, District Hisar and policy was also revived at Hisar. Revival premium was also paid at Hisar and life assured died on 5.9.2009 at PGIMS, Rohtak  and deceased was residing alongwith the complainant at Kaithal and as such no part of cause of action arose at Jind. As such this Forum  has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. 
6.    At the very outset it is clear from the policy Ex.C-3, the policy in question has been purchased from Hisar and it is also clear from the record that the insurer died at Rohtak and insurer was also residing at Kaithal. The counsel for the opposite parties has argued that as per 

            Ram Phal Sharma Vs. LIC
                    …5…
Section 11(2) (a ) (b) (c ) of Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced as under:-
(a) the opposite or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or (carries 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 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 District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not resides or (carry on business or have 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. 
7.    We have gone through the complaint as well as evidence adduced by the parties according to which  the policy was issued  and revived from Hisar and the Hisar branch is not doing their business in the territory of District Jind and  the insurer had also died at Rohtak. So this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the resent case.  Even if it is presumed that the branch office of the opposite party is situated at Jind , mere branch office at Jind does not create any jurisdiction at Jind until and unless the cause of action arise at Jind.Therefore, in light of  judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, we hold that this Forum have not territorial jurisdiction thus we have 
            Ram Phal Sharma Vs. LIC
                    …6…
no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industiral Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC page 583. The complainant can obtain all the original documents if any, relied upon in this case and Assistant is also directed to hand over the same, if any, attached with the complaint after retaining the photo copies of the same. Parties will bear their own expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 28.6.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

               Ram Phal Sharma Vs. LIC
                    
Present:-    Sh. Ashwani Sharma Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. R.S. Sindhwani Adv.for opposite parties. 
            
                Remaining arguments heard.  To come up on  24.6.2016 for orders.

                                        President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           21.6.2016

Present:-    Sh. Ashwani Sharma Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. R.S. Sindhwani Adv.for opposite parties. 

        Order is not ready. To come up on 28.6.2016 for orders.

                                                                                      President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           24.6.2016

 

Present:-    Sh. Ashwani Sharma Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. R.S. Sindhwani Adv.for opposite parties.
 
                Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

                                                                                               President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           28.6.2016