Delhi

New Delhi

CC/203/2020

RAJINDER PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAX LIFE INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

ADHISH SRIVASTAVA

11 Jan 2021

ORDER

 

                    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                              (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                  ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                   NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.203/2020                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

Rajinder Pal Singh,

S/o Late Mr. Suraj Singh Bali,

R/o House No.177 Sec.B,

Sainik Colony, Jammu-180011.

                  

……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Max Life Insurance,

Branch Office:Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. UGF,

Himalya House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-01.

 

Registered office at:

419, Bhai Mohan Singh Nagar,

Railmajra,

Tehsil Balachaur Nawan,

Sehar, Punjab-144533.

                                                                                                                                                         ….......OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

File taken up through Video Conferencing.

 

2.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in services and claiming  a sum of Rs.1 crore  besides other relief

3.     Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by the complainant that  Branch office of OP is situated at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi,  within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, so this District Commission was competent to adjudicate the matter.

4.     In  the present case, Complainant is residing at Jammu  and  the policy was issued from the Gurugram, Haryana  office of the OP Co which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  Further, treatment was taken from the Holy Angel Hospital, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and  Guru Nanak Dev Netralaya, Jammu  which also does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any document which proves that any cause of action or part of it arose from the office of the OP at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, hence, neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the  territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum.

5.     We are, therefore, of the view that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court decided  on 20/10/2009  in Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004. The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 11/01/2021.                

 

 

 ( ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(DR. R.C. MEENA)

MEMBER