Present:  1. Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President.

                                 2. Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member.

                                          28^th day of January 2013

                                      C.C.32/2013 filed on 15.1.2013

Complainant:        P.N. Premkumar, S/o. Late Narendranath, Pandarikkal

                             House, P.O. Kizhakkummuri, Peringottukara, Thrissur.

                             (By Sri. C.R. Viswambharan, Advocate, Thrissur-3)

Respondents:        1. M/s. Maxlife Insurane Co. Ltd, P.O.Bag No.4371,

                                 Kalkaji, Head Post Office, New Delhi.

                             2. Manager, Claims Unit, Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd,

                                 2^nd Floor, Operations Centre, 90-A, Udyog Vihar,

                                 Sector-18, Gurgaon, Haryana, India.

                             3. Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Kunnamkulam Branch,

                                 Kunnamkulam, Thrissur.

                                                 O R D E R

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:

          The complaint is filed to get reimbursement of medical expenses from the respondent. It can be seen that the policy was issued by 2^nd respondent which is situated in Haryana and the repudiation of policy is also by 2^nd respondent.  There is no cause of action or part cause of action within the territorial limits of this Forum.  The 3^rd respondent, Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Kunnamkulam is made in the party array only to file complaint before this Forum.  But it can be seen that there is no transaction with this respondent or through this respondent.  So the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  It is submitted that since the 3^rd respondent is situated in Thrissur the complaint is maintainable before this Forum.  It is not so. In CTJ 2010 Page 3 it is reported a ruling of our National Commission that the expression “branch office” in the Consumer Protection Act means where the cause of action has arisen.  It doesn’t mean that a complaint against the insurer could have been filed anywhere in India wherever it had branch office.  It is also stated that it will lead to absurd consequences of bench hunting if the complainant is allowed to file complaint anywhere in India where the branch office of complainee is situated.  Hence rejected.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 28^th day of January 2013.

                                                                             (Sd)

                                                                   Padmini Sudheesh, President.

                                                                             (Sd)

                                                                    M.S. Sasidharan, Member.

                                                Appendix

                                                                 Nil

                                                                             (Id)

                                                                        President