Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1020/2013

Sh. Gurnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

09 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 1020/2013                                                                       Dated:

In the matter of:

GURNAM SINGH

216 (SFS), POCKET 10,

SECTOR 11, ROHINI,

DELHI-110085

                                                                                                     ……..COMPLAINANT

Versus

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,

“DEEVAN BHARATI”

124, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,

P.B. NO. 630, NEW DELHI-110001                                                                                                                                                                                   ……..OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

Complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging the deficiency in services against OP.  The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants had taken an insurance policy from the OP having policy no. 235058075 and the amount of the same with respect to surgical benefit was Rs. 02,00,000/- and the effective date January, 2010. Complainant has pay premium annually and the amount was Rs. 15,000/-.

It is further alleged that the complainant’s wife underwent minor surgery on 11/12/2012 and major surgery on 06/04/2013 in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. The cost incurred for hospitalization charges and medical charges came out to be Rs. 02,31,782/-, however, the complainant’s claim of Rs. 02,31,782/- was rejected arbitrarily, without any justified reason by the OP.

The complainant had also received a letter on 06/04/2013 for M/S MDI Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd. stating that his first claim for minor surgery and hospitalization of his wife was rejected as it did not come under the purview of the policy conditions.  It is further alleged that the complainant had finally requested to Managing Director, LIC, on 06/09/2013 for reimbursement of payments, made towards surgery of beneficiary of Policy Holders but no reply has been received

The complainant pleaded that the repudiation of the claim is on false and frivolous ground amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP, hence this complaint.

OP was noticed and OP filed its written statement. In its written statement OP has taken the objection that the present policy was issued from the Kanpur branch of the answering corporation. It is further submitted that no cause of action arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the this Forum and therefore the claim is liable to be rejected.

On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP has its office at Connaught Circus, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action or the office of the OP through which the correspondence had been made is at, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.

In other words neither the office of the OP through which the policy had been taken nor the cause of action arose within 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 respondentinsurance 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 view of the above, we are of the opinion that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical’s case(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 09/03/2020.

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                 (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                              MEMBER