Delhi

New Delhi

CC/103/2018

Rishu Sony - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

29 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI 

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC 103/2018                                                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Rishu Sony

R/o 16/1088, 4^th Floor,

Block-E, Khalsa Nagar,

Tank Road, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005

                                                                                              ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

1505-1506,15^th Floor,

 Ambadeep Building,

14, K.G.Marg, Barakhamba,

New Delhi 110001

 

……..OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

The gist of  the  complaint   is  that  the  complainant is the holder of Lifeline Policy No. LLA0000134000102/LLA1/Supreme, which is a health insurance policy issued by OP. It is alleged by the complainant that lastly he paid Rs. 11,251/- as renewal premium on 12/01/2017 and the policy is in force till 19/01/2018 and provides a cover of Rs. 5lacs to the complainant and his family. It is further submitted that on 03/08/2017 the complainant and his wife both fell ill and got admitted to Fortis Escorts Hospital situated at Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur-302017, Rajasthan and got discharged from the hospital after the treatment on 05/08/2017. That the hospital had raised bill of Rs. 39,975/-. As the complainant deposited all the policy papers with the hospital at the time of admission and was sure that the hospital bills would be paid by OP as the policy of the complainant was a cashless policy.  It is further stated that the OP rejected the claim of the complainant and the complainant was forced to make the payment of hospital bills even though the policy of the complainant was in force at the time of hospitalization. Complainant has sent a legal notice dated 27/10/2017 to the OP but the OP neither complied nor replied the same. It is further alleged by the complainant that after discharge from the hospital the complainant contacted the representatives of the OP and requested them to reimburse the hospital bills but none of them paid heed to the request of the complainant. Due to negligence in performing duty by OP, the complainant has suffered loss of money, loss of time, mental pain and agony. 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. The perusal of the file shows that the policy was issued from the Chakala, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093, which does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.   The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that  the cause of action or the policy in question was issued from the office of the OP at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.  In other words neither the office of the OP 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 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.”

 

3.    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 02/04/2019

 

                                             (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                      PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER