Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/1087

KIRTI JINDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSU.CO. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.A.S.DEKHNE

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                           FIRST APPEAL NO. 1087 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 23.05.2014 passed in C.C.No.415/2014 by the District Commission, Indore)

1. KIRTI JINDAL D/O SHRI HUKUMCHAND JINDAL

    R/O 41-42, MAIN STREET, MHOW DISTRICT-INDORE.

 

2. HUKUMCHAND JINDAL S/O SHRI NANDLAL JI JINDAL

    R/O 41-42, MAIN STREET, MHOW DISTRICT-INDORE.                                  …          APPELLANTS.

 

Versus                

1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.III,

    15-17-19, SHRI LAXMI COMPLEX,

     ST. MARK’S ROAD, BANGALORE (KARNATAKA)-560 001

 

2. MEDI ASSIST INDIA TPA PVT.LTD.

    SHILPA VIDHYA, THIRD FLOOR,

    49, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, SARAKKI INDI LAYOUT,

    J.P.NAGAR 3^RD PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078   

 

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
    REGIONAL OFFICE, APPOLO TOWER,

    M.G.ROAD, INDORE (M.P.)                                                                            …         RESPONDENTS.                                     

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                      :   PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY               :  MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA         :   MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

      Shri Suresh Indorekar, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.

                                                                               

                                                            O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 30.09.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:    

                         This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.05.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore

 

-2-

(for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.415/2014, whereby the complaint filed by them has been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

2.                The facts of the case in short are that the complainant no.1/appellant no.1 had obtained Tailormade Hospitalization Benefit Policy (Mediclaim Policy) no. 602200/46/12/8500000090 from the opposite party no.1 & 2/respondent no.1 & 2 for her parents Shri Hukumchand Jindal (complainant no.2/appellant no.2) and Smt. Shakuntala Jindal for sum insured of Rs.2,00,000/- each  for a period w.e.f. 01.08.2012 to 31.07.2013 after making payment of premium of Rs.22,500/-. On 29.05.2012 her father appellant no.2 with complaint of chest pain got admitted in Gokuldas Heart Hospital, Indore where he underwent CAG + PTCA to LAD & RCA on 29.05.2012 and discharged on 01.06.2012. It is alleged that they incurred Rs.5,00,000/- as treatment expenses. Since the sum insured under the policy was Rs.2,00,000/- only therefore the claim form along with documents was filed with the respondent no.1 and 2-insurance company. However, the insurance company paid only Rs.1,65,000/- and remaining Rs.35,000/- were not paid. The complainants/appellants therefore approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service, on part of the opposite parties seeking relief of payment of Rs.35,000/- along with compensation and costs Rs.10,000/-.

 

-3-

3.                The District Commission placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Limited IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) dismissed the complaint at the admission stage holding that the District Commission, Indore has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant had obtained the policy from the Bangalore.

4.                Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainants/appellants argued that the District Commission committed error in holding that the District Commission, Indore has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Since the appellant no.2 fell ill when he was in Indore and Regional office of the opposite parties/respondents is at Indore, as also the cause of action arose at Indore.  Therefore, as per provisions of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the District Commission at Indore had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He submits that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.  

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents supporting the impugned order submits that since the policy was obtained from Bangalore and part amount of claim was paid by the Bangalore office,

 

-4-

therefore, the District Commission at Bangalore only have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find that from the policy document filed by the complainants/appellants show “Tailormade Hospitalization Benefit Policy for the Dependants of Infosys Employees” which clearly goes to show that the appellant no.1 during her job at Glen Mills, Bangalore had obtained the policy in question for dependents i.e. her parents. It is an admitted fact that she took the policy at Bangalore and the insurance company situated at Bangalore issued the policy on 30.07.2012.  In the said receipt, address of the complainant no.1/appellant no.1 is also shown as “Kirti Jindal, B-4/104, Mantri Residency, Near Meenakshi Temple, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore, Karnataka. It is true that her father fell ill at Indore and underwent some procedure at Gokuldas Hospital, Indore. It is also an admitted that she filed a claim no.2844676 with the respondent no.1 situated at Bangalore. The legal notice of Advocate Hemant Purohi on behalf of complainant/appellant was also sent to National Insurance Company, Divisional Office-III, St. Mark’s Road, Bangalore and Medi Assist India TPA Pvt. Ltd. J. P. Nagar, Bangalore, which clearly goes to show that policy had obtained from the opposite party situated at Bangalore, claim filed at Bangalore.

-5-

8.                It is also pertinent to mention here that initially the appellants had filed a complaint on 15.04.2014 before the District Commission, Indore against the respondent no.1 & 2, having their office at Bangalore. However, with ulterior motive on 05.05.2014 by moving an application the complainants added Regional Office, Indore of the Insurance Company as opposite party no.3/respondent no.3 just to bring the complaint within territorial jurisdiction of District Commission, Indore entire transaction took place at Bangalore.

9.                So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that as per Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1986’) the District Commission, Indore had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is concerned, we would like to refer Section 11(2) of Act of 1986, which reads thus:

                   11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum—

                        (1)………

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction—

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

            (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution, or

                                    (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

-6-

10.              Here in the instant matter, admittedly the appellant no.1 took insurance policy at Bangalore and she filed claim of medical expenses incurred in treatment of her father with the respondent no.1 at Bangalore and the Bangalore office of the respondent no.1 considered her claim. Therefore the cause of action arose on the very same day and that is at Bangalore. Thus it is clear that no part of cause of action wholly or partly arose in Indore.  Thus by merely adding the Regional Office, Indore of respondents’ company as party to the case, and that the complainant no.2/appellant no.2 got treatment at Indore, it cannot be said that the District Commission, Indore has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Thus in our considered view, the District Commission, Indore has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it is only District Commission, Bangalore had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We do not agree with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.

11.              Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Limited IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) while dealing with a case of State Commission wherein fire broke out in godown at Ambala, insurance policy taken at Ambala, claim was made at Ambala and the complaint was filed at Chandigarh has held in para 8 as under:

                   “Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company has branch office at Chandigarh and

-7-

hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned 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 learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen at 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.”                        

 

12.              From the above decision, it is lucidly clear that merely because the opposite party has a branch office at a particular place will not be a foundation for territorial jurisdiction.  Though the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he had made claim at Bangalore but the insured fell ill at Indore, in our opinion, this will not constitute an action to create part cause of action at Indore as the policy was taken at Bangalore, and entire transaction/communication took place at Bangalore.

13.              It is relevant to mention here that the policy was obtained at Bangalore therefore the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided on the basis that where the insured fell ill or where the insured resides. It is only to be seen that where the opposite party actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business and in view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Apex Court, the expression ‘branch office’ in the

-8-

amended Section 11(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. Here in the present case, the cause of action wholly arose at Bangalore and not consider to be arose at Indore.

14.              Thus in our considered view, the District Commission, Indore had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  We are not agree with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as not tenable.

15.              In the similar facts and circumstances, the Gujrat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Cox & Kings Ltd Vs Ansuyaben Desai & Ors I (2022) CPJ 96 (Guj) has held that since the

complainant deposited the amount of tour at Surat, therefore, the Surat District Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the aforesaid case, the complainant booked a tour for Bangkok and deposited the amount for the same at Surat, thereafter the dispute arose between the parties at Surat, the Gujrat State Commission held that payment of the tour was deposited with Surat Branch that is why the case of action arisen at Surat, So the Surat District Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

16.              This Commission also took similar view in First Appeal No.73 OF 2021 (Rajendra Prasad Mittal Vs Sahara Credit Co-operative Society) decided on 26.05.2022, First Appeal No.1708/2012 (Shyam

-9-

Swaroop Shrivastava Vs Manager, ICICI Bank) decided on 05.08.2022 and in First Appeal No. 342/2010 (Tata Commercial Automobiles Vs Yogesh Choudhary) & First Appeal No. 2076/2013 (Tata Motors Vs Yogesh Choudhary) decided on 02.09.2022.

17.              Therefore, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the District Commission relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Sonic Surgical (supra) that the District Commission, Indore has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

18.              In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission, it is therefore upheld.

19.              In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. 

   (A. K. Tiwari)       (Dr. Srikant Pandey)      (D. K. Shrivastava)     

     Presiding Member            Member                          Member