Delhi

New Delhi

CC/265/2019

Krishan Lal Budhiraja - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

 

                              CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                  (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

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

                                                                     NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.265/2019                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

                 Mr. Krishan Lal Budhiraja,

                 S/o Sh. C.D. Budhiraja,

                 R/o SU-203, Vishakha Enclave,

                 Pitampura, North West, Delhi-34.                     

……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Regd. Office at:

H-Block, 1^st Floor,

Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,

Navi Mumbai-400710

Service to be effected through the CEO

 

Also at:

Flat No.10-15, 14^th Floor,

Vijaya Building,

17, Connaught Place,

Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-01.

                                                                                                                                                                            …...OPPOSITE PARTY

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Arguments on admission of complaint were heard.  We have gone through the complaint as well as documents filed with it.  The brief facts of the complaint are that on 11.9.2018,  the complainant has to go to Australia for which he purchased a Mediclaim Policy from the OP and paid a premium of Rs.21370.59 and GST.  The complainant went to Australia on 17.9.2018 where he was hospitalized from 24.1.2019 to 28.1.2019 as he was suffering from left lower lobe pneumonia.  Total expenses incurred for treatment of the complainant comes to Australian Dollar 10908.95 which the OP was liable to pay to the hospital but it did not pay the same.  The complainant has no other option to pay the bill raised by the hospital and he did the same.  Thereafter, on 24.1.2019, the complainant lodged a claim with the OP but claim of the complainant was rejected by the OP.  The complainant sent a legal notice dt. 13.8.2019 to the OP  but OP neither send any response  nor comply the requisition of the said notice till date, hence this complaint.

2.     Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by the complainant that  office of OP is situated at Connaught Place, New Delhi,  within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter.

3.     In  the present case, that the policy was issued from the Mumbai office of the OP Co which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The cause of action i.e. the repudiation of the claim by the OP is also from the Mumbai office of the OP Co. which also does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any documents which proves that any cause of action or part of it arose from the office of the OPs at Connaght Place, New Delhi, hence, neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the  territorial jurisdiction of this District 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.”

 

4.     We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum 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 in Sonic Surgical 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 on07/01/2020.

                                 

 

 ( ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                                (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                      (H M VYAS)

                                         MEMBER                                                    MEMBER