Delhi

New Delhi

CC/193/2018

Dinesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Star Health Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

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

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.193/2018                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

            Sh. Dinesh Kumar,

            S/o Sh. Mohan Lal,

           R/o 15A, DDA Flats,

          Pandav Nagar, New Delhi.

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

           Star Health Insurance Pvt. Ltd. Co. Ltd.,

            Through its

           Sr./Divisional Manager/Sr. Branch Manager,

            1^st Floor, Himalaya House,

         23, K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,

         New Delhi-110001.

                          Opposite Party

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the Company of the complainant has purchased the Policy bearing No.P/170000/01/2017/000082 for himself and his family.  It is alleged on behalf of complainant that on 22.12.2017 the daughter of the complainant  was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital  and was diagnosed with Appendix in stomach  where the surgery was done for appendix.  The hospital raised a bill of Rs.1,02,063/- out of which OP Insurance Co. had paid Rs.83,082/-.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the OP several times for consideration of his balance claim but nothing has been done by the OP to settle his genuine claim.  Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

 2.     Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It was submitted by the complainant that office of OP is situated in K.G. Marg, New Delhi,  within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter. He argued that Delhi is one district as held by Hon’ble State Commission in the matter titled as FA No. 10/220 titled as Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar. It was submitted on behalf of complainant that cause of action was continuing and subsisting against the OP. The complaint is within time and the amount claimed is under Rs. 20 Lacs. It is stated that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint and also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court titled as Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioner Welfare Association (Regd.)  V/s Lieutenant Governor & Ors.  in WP(C) No. 11424/16,

3.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble State Commission of Delhi In Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn, dated 17/10/2017 in F.A. No. 488/2017, has discussed the scope of jurisdiction of the District Forum as defined in Section 11 (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and dealt with the scope of territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. While passing the judgment Hon’ble  State Commission considered all the previous judgements passed by the Commission on the point of territorial jurisdiction including the judgement cited by Hon’ble High Court, Delhi (i.e.) RP No. 07/18 titled as Singh’s Dental Hospital vs. Shri Amrit Lal Dureja and FA No. 10/220 titled as Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar, FA 216/12 titled as Mahesh Ram Nath Vs. The Secretary cum Commissioner (Transport) and other decision in the case the Sardar Saranjeet Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Dixit III (2010) CPJ 181. It is pertinent to mentioned here that Singh’s Dental Hospital case was decided on 31/10/2007, whereas Prem Joshi’s case was decided on 17/10/2017 after 10 years.

4.     On the point  of Delhi being one district, after considering all above noted judgements, the Hon’ble State Commission in Prem Joshi’s case  observed as under in the following paras:-

7.    “The District Forum distinguished the above decision on the ground that the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide notification dated 20.04.99 divided Delhi in 10 districts defining their respective area.  Notification was issued for being complied with instead of being flouted.

8.     Obviously the purpose of defining jurisdiction was to regularize and distribute the work to bring certainty instead of creating chaos.  If all the litigants prefer to chose one forum, that forum would be overburdened and remaining nine forums would become idle. 

9.   Over and above that we may mention that appellant of FA 216/12 namely Mahesh Ram Nath preferred Revision Petition in National Commission which was registered as No. 2816/2012.  The  said petition came up for hearing on 17.08.12.  National Commission called for report from President of this Commission as to whether there was any demarcation of territorial jurisdiction and if so whether the same was being followed or not and if not for what reasons.  On 27.09.12 it was observed that territorial jurisdiction of various district forums of Delhi was a matter of great public importance.  Therefore Secretary & Commissioner, Deptt of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was directed to appear in person on 10.10.12 so that position can be clarified as to implementation of the notification.  Mr. Shakti Bangar, Asstt. Director assured the National Commission to communicate directions of the National Commission to officers concerned for compliance.  National Commission was informed by some advocate that notification relating to distribution of jurisdiction in various consumer fora functioning in Delhi was not being followed in its letter and spirit.  Deptt of Consumer Affairs was directed to furnish reports from all the district forums as to whether they were strictly following the notification and if not, they were to give the number of cases which have been entertained/ decided contrary to the stipulation contained in notification.

10.The Director, Consumer Affairs issued a circular No. F.50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.12 conveying the feelings of National Commission regarding not following the notification in its letter and spirit.  It was also conveyed that National Commission took a very serious view and stated that inspite of notification promulgated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20.04.99 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order.  On the basis of the said letter Registrar of this Commission wrote a letter No. F.1/(Misc.)/SC/2012/5045 dated 08.11.12 advising President, District Forums to strictly comply with the directions i.e. notification.

11. It is a different matter that on 09.09.14 none appeared for the petitioner in National Commission and the petition was dismissed for non prosecution.  But still the fact remains that National Commission took a serious view about not following the notification defining territorial jurisdiction.  The same leads us to hold that notification has to be complied.”

5.       In view of the above discussion, this Forum is bound by the principles laid down recently by Hon’ble State Commission in  Prem Joshi’s case holding the binding effect of  notifications issued by order and in the name of the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi under the provision of Rule 4 of Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 in respect to the allocation of business amongst the District Forums framed under Consumer Protection Act 1986. This view confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 11424/16 stating that District Forms are bound by the principles laid down by Hon’ble State Commission.

6.       In the present case, the complainant has failed to place on record the policy documents and had placed on record the claim form in which the address of OP is at Chennai.  The cause of action i.e. treatment taken  at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi-60 does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence, neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.

7.         So far as the arguments that the one of Office of the OP at Connaught Place for territorial purposes is concerned, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in FA No.347/15 decided on 29.12.2015 titles as Spice Jet Ltd. Vs. Ranju Aery upheld by Hon’ble National Commission on 07.02.2017 in R.P. No.1396/16, the SLP filed against this order was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The relevant portion of Hon’ble State Commission judgement in which head quarter was at Gurgaon is as under:

“In case, arguments of Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it would amount to clogging down the District Forum at Gurgaon, as complainants throughout the country , will approach there, for filing their complaints and further it will be very costly for anybody, to anybody, to travel to Gurgaon and defend his/her case.  Such a stipulation was not contemplated, under the Provision of the CPA 1986”

8.     Therefore, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint in the light of principle laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission in the recent Prem Joshi’s case (SUPRA) and the legal position discussed above. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the competent District Forum in accordance with Law.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the complainant to the case free of cost as statutorily required. File be consigned to R.R.

 

Announced in open Forum on  26/07/2018.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

                                                      (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                    PRESIDENT

 

 

                                           (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                          

                                                                           MEMBER