Delhi

New Delhi

CC/215/2017

Mamta Phogat - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. HDFC Engo Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC./215/2017                                Dated:

 

In the matter of:

Mamta Phogat

W/o Rohit Phogat,

R/o House No. 62 R/1 Near Street No.3

Krishna Nagar, Humayupur,

Safdarjung Enclave

New Delhi-110029                               ……..COMPLAINANT

 

    

 

VERSUS

 

 

HDFC ERGO General insurance company limited

14, Ambadeep Building,

Kasturba Gandhi Mard,

New Delhi-110001

   ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.M. VYAS- MEMBER

              The gist of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a           “Health Insurance policy” on 13/02/12 for herself her Husband and two children each one of them was ensured for a sum of Rs.-3,00,000. The Policy of renewed from time to time and was valid during the period 16/03/2016 to 15/03/2016  in December 2016 she want for her medical check up and was Diagnosed the Urinary Tract Infection in Holy angel Hospital. She remained Hospitalised for Three days and discharged on 08/12/2016. The cashless facilities available under the said Health Insurance  Policy was denied by the OP i.e. Insurance Company and the reimbursement sought was repudiated vide letter dated 26/12/2016 (Ex. C-5 to the complaint) as filed by the complainant. The repudiation is on the ground that patient is a known case of pre-existing disease, Hypothyroidism for last five years which the insured had not disclosed while purchasing such policy.

On the  issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the counsel for complainant that the OP has its office at Kasturaba Gandi Marg, New Delhi. Falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The copy of the policy (annexure C-1) & repudiation (letter C-5) and the location of the hospital where she had under gone treatment is at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The complainant is Resident of Safdar Jang Enclave, New Delhi. Annexure C-1 and C-5 to the complainant shows that the policy was not taken from the OP from its office falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the repudiation letter was issued by the office located at Noida, which is not under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. the Hospital is situated at Vasant Vihar. In other words neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

              We are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

 

 

“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]

 

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, we direct the complaint to be returned to the complainant for filing it before appropriate and competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant along with documents filed along with the court fee certificate be returned to the complainant against receipt after obtaining a copy of the same and then file be consigned to the record room.

 

From the foregoing facts it is clear that neither the cause of action nor the policy was taken from  place located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction and in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement ( Supra). 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 06/06/2017.

  

                                (S K SARVARIA)

                                     PRESIDENT

 

                                               (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                  (H M VYAS)

                                                     MEMBER                                               MEMBER