BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
Friday, the 23rd day of February 2018
First Appeal No.25/2017 in Unnumberred C.C. /2013
L.S. Manimozhie, wife of K. Thirumaran
No.85, Ignacy Maistry Street
Pondicherry – 605 001.
… Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
1. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,
having office at Sundaram Towers,
No.45, 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014 rep. by its
Managing Director
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its General Manager
having Office at Sundaram Towers,
No.45, 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014
… Respondents / Opposite Parties
Unnumbered C.C. / 2013
L.S. Manimozhie, wife of K. Thirumaran
No.85, Ignacy Maistry Street
Pondicherry – 605 001.
…. Complainant
Vs
1. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,
having office at Sundaram Towers,
No.45, 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014 rep. by its
Managing Director
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its General Manager
having Office at Sundaram Towers,
No.45, 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014
…. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE JUSTICE THIRU K. VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
Thiru S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru R. Ilansijiane, Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Thiru B. Mohandoss, Advocate
O R D E R
(By Justice Thiru K. Venkataraman, President)
This appeal is directed against the order passed in unnumbered
C.C. /2013 and M.P. No. 159/2017 dated 12.09.2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry.
2. The Complainant therein is the Appellant herein and the Opposite Parties are the respondents in this appeal.
3. The parties are referred in the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum, Puducherry.
4. The case of the complainant in nutshell is set out hereunder:
The complainant took Medical Insurance Policy with the Opposite Parties for the period from 02.11.2010 to 01.11.2011. She fell ill on 23.05.2011 and got treatment as inpatient for about 18 days in a hospital at Pondicherry and was discharged on 10.06.2011. She had spent about Rs.37,800/- and made a claim with the Opposite Parties which was rejected. Hence, the complaint.
5. The unnumbered complaint was returned on 15.05.2013 to state as to how this complaint is maintainable on the point of territorial jurisdiction. The same was represented on 23.02.2015 stating that the opposite parties' business covers Pondicherry and cause of action arose at Pondicherry and therefore, the District Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, also an application to condone the delay in representing the complaint was also filed. On 26.02.2015 the complaint was again returned stating that the returns made were not properly answered. The papers were again represented for second time on 7.4.2016 saying that since the complainant was treated in a hospital at Pondicherry and hence, the complaint is maintainable. Again another application to condone the delay in representing the complaint was filed. The complaint was again returned on 7.4.2016 along with an application to condone the delay stating that the compliance of the previous returns are not satisfactory. The complainant again represented the papers. Thereafter, the matter was taken on 26.09.2017 by the District Forum for hearing the complainant on the question of maintainability. The District Forum found that the complaint is not maintainable before it and returned the complaint to the complainant to present it in the proper forum. However, in paragraph 24 of the order, the District Forum held that the period of limitation shall be computed excluding the period of the date of filing of the complaint to the date of order of the District Forum, Puducherry.
6. As stated already, the present appeal is filed against the said decision taken by the District Forum.
7. We have carefully perused the complaint and the decision cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.
8. It is not in dispute that the complainant took medical insurance policy with the opposite parties for the period between 02.11.2010 to 01.11.2011. It is also not disputed that the complainant was admitted in a hospital in Pondicherry on 23.05.2011 and was treated by the hospital authorities as in-patient and discharged only on 10.06.2011. However, the question remains to be answered is whether the District Forum, Puducherry has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and decide the same.
9. It is an admitted case that both the opposite parties are having office at Chennai and it is not even the case of the complainant that the opposite parties are having branch office at Pondicherry. While so, we cannot accept the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that the complaint is maintainable before the District Forum, Pondicherry since the complainant fell ill and admitted as in-patient and treated in a hospital at Pondicherry and therefore, the cause of action arose at Pondicherry and the complaint is maintainable.
10. The judgment relied on by the District Forum in the case of
Sonic Surgicals vs National Insurance Company Limited (Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 – Supreme Court of India) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The District Forum has extracted a portion of the said judgment which is extracted hereunder.
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 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.....
11. As stated already, not even a Branch Office of the Opposite Parties are situated in Pondicherry. Merely because the complainant was admitted and treated in a hospital at Pondicherry, the cause of action will not arose in filing the complaint before the District Forum, Pondicherry. The said view taken by the District Forum is well in order and it requires no reconsideration.
12. However, we are not in agreement with the decision taken by the District Forum with regard to the Limitation which is set out in paragraph 24. The paragraph 24 is extracted hereunder.
Though it is not maintainable before this Forum, the interest of justice requires that instead of rejecting the complaint u/s 12 (3) of the C.P. Act for this reason, the complaint which was filed well within the period of limitation shall be ordered to be returned to the complainant for being filed before appropriate Forum as held by Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in catena of cases of filing of complaint before a Forum and for the same, the period of limitation shall be computed excluding the period of the date of filing of this complaint to the date of this order, when the complaint is presented before the competent Consumer Forum in pursuance of this order.
13. While holding that the District Forum, Pondicherry has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint of the complainant, it should not have stretched further in saying that the period of limitation shall be computed excluding the date of filing of this complaint to the date of the order, when the complaint is presented before the competent District Forum in pursuance of the order of the District Forum. In our considered view, it is the competent Consumer Forum which has to decide about the limitation as to whether the period of filing the complaint before the District Forum, Puducherry and the pendency of the proceedings before the District forum, Puducherry shall be excluded or not. Therefore, that part of the order alone is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.
14. In fine, the complaint is returned to the complainant who is at liberty to present the same before the competent Consumer Forum. It is open to the complainant to plead for exclusion of time i.e. from the date of filing of the complaint till the order made hereunder. However, there is no order as to costs.
Dated this the 15th day of February 2018.
(Justice K. VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
