Delhi

New Delhi

CC/517/2014

Nitesh Rastogi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2020

ORDER

 

 

NEW DELHI DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.517/2014                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

         Nitesh Rastogi,

       S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chand Rastogi,

      B-3, Beverly Block,RC  Prince Gardenia,

       97, Perumboor Redhills Road,

       Vinayagapuram Kolathur,

        Chennai-600 099.

 

……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

       The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

        A 25/27,Asaf Ali Road,

          New Delhi-110002.

Opposite Party.

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

Matter has taken up through video conferencing. 

2.     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 as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant has purchased “Happy Family Floater Policy in the year 2008 for his family and himself from the OP Co. for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, bearing No.212200/48/2014/210 valid from 21.5.2013 to 20.5.2014. It is further submitted that the said policy was continuously renewed till date  and the premium of insurance was paid by the complainant. The OP Co. has assured the complainant that the medical expenses incurred by his parents would be reimbursed upto a certain limit as prescribed in the above said policy.  In the month of January 2014, the mother of the complainant fell ill and on 4.1.2014, shewas admitted in Maxivision Eye Care Hospital in Chennai for treatment, she was discharged from  Hospital on 4.1.2014.It is alleged that the complainant incurred a sum of Rs.41,230/- . In the month of February  2014, the mother of the complainant   again admitted  in same hospital at  Chennai for her  treatment. This time hospital raised a bill of Rs.32,737/- against the treatment. The complainant  filled the claim form and submitted the same  at office of the  OP alongwith all medical treatment slips, invoices and bills but the claim was repudiated  vide letter dated 8.5.2014 stating that ARMD(Age Related Macula Degeneration ) is not covered under the policy.  Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

3.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP-1 has its office at Jeevan Bharti Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

4.     The perusal of the file shows that the policy was issued from Janakpuri Office of the OP Co.  The complaint if any made to the OP-1 was forwarded by it to OP-2 to 4 for consideration.  The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action if any arose against the office situated at Sansad Marg, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In other words neither the OPs nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

5.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP.  Ms. Shaili filed Vakalatnama and also accepted the copy of the complaint on 31.10.2014.  The matter was adjourned for 23.12.2014 for filing the written statement on behalf of OP.

6.     Perusal of record shows that the ordersheet dt. 23.12.2014 is not on record.  Vide ordersheet dt. 23.12.2015, the matter was adjourned to 13.1.2015 since none appeared on behalf of OP, 13.1.2015, OP was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte. Later on 12.2.2016, the official of the OP, Sh. Sidharath appeared and stated that there is possibility of settlement between the parties. Finally on 23.2.2016, Sh. Sanjay, counsel for OP, who finally argued the matter on behalf of OP.

7.     It is argued on behalf of OP that the policy issuing office in the present complaint is Vikas Puri, New Delhi, hence this Forum does not have Territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. 

8.     It is argued on behalf of complainant that the OP Insurance Co. has its office at Asaf Ali Road, hence, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. 

9.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis.  Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

10.    The complainant has placed on record, the copy of policy documents which clearly shows that the policy was issued from  the Vikaspuri Office of the OP Co.  So, the District Forum having Territorial Jurisdiction over Janakpuri, New Delhi would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

11.    In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Part Inn in Revision Petition No.575/18 and the legal position discussed above,  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.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  free of

cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on  31/08/2020.

 

 

                                    (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                             PRESIDENT

                                                         

 

 

 

(H M VYAS)

MEMBER