Delhi

New Delhi

CC/28/2019

SH. ROHIT BHARDWAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2019

ORDER

                               CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

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

                                          NEW DELHI-110001

Case No.CC. 28/2019                                                                                                                               Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Rohit Bhardwaj

S/o Sh. Anil Bhardwaj

R/o H.no. 140, Sh. Shyam Baba Chowk,

Village & Post office Khera Khurd,

Delhi-110082            

                                                                  ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

 HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.           

14, Ambadeep Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001 

Also At:

HDFC ERGO General      Insurance Co. Ltd.

Steller, IT Park, Tower-1,

5^th Floor, C-25, Sector-62,

Noida-201301                                    

                                                                                     ……….OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP. The gist of the complaint is that  the complainant is the policy holder of the OP insurance Co. vide policy bearing no. 299920140739920000 and the health card regarding the same was issued by OP. The complainant was admitted for surgery on 13/05/2017 in Ganga Ram Hospital after pre-approval received from the OP company vide its letter dated 08/05/2017. The complainant was discharged on 14/05/2017 and OP company refused to honour the hospital bill on the ground that awaiting period of one year was applicable for the treatment taken by him, hence this complaint.

2.       On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP has its office at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

3.       The perusal of the file shows that the policy was issued from Chennai Office of the OP Co.   The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action, if any, arose at the office situated at, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, 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.”

 

 

In the light of the judgment cited above and the legal position discussed, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law. 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.

Announced in open Forum on  21/02/2019.

 

    (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

             PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                        (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                   MEMBER