Haryana

Kurukshetra

144/2018

Jasbir Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram Life - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Tanwar

11 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                     Complaint Case No.144 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 05.07.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:11.10.2019.
 

Jasbir Kaur wife of late Balwinder Singh, aged about 30 years, resident of village Kakrala Anayat, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Shri Ram Life Insurance Company Limited, Ramky Selenium, Plot No.31 and 32, Beside Andhra Bank, Training Centre, Financial District, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-50032 (Telangana)
2. Shri Ram Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager Ist Floor, SCO-43, Sector-17, Kurukshetra-136118.

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.

                   Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

         

Present:     Shri Rahul Tanwar, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Jasbir Kaur against Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. and another, the opposite parties.

2.             Brief facts of the present complaint are that husband of complainant late Shri Balwinder Singh took a policy Shri Ram New Shri Raksha from the OPs by signing a proposal form No.217217000157 dated 15.09.2017 through agent Shri Tarun Kumar Code No.S1270313 and paid a sum of Rs.24,278/- towards proposal deposit vide receipt No.517220170900023 for the period from 21.09.2017. The OPs informed to the husband of complainant on dated 22.09.2017 that your proposal form has been accepted and the policy document will be dispatched within one or two days. It is alleged that the complainant’s husband was died 24.09.2017 and she immediately informed the OPs in this regard and submitted all the required documents for getting necessary claim on 22.01.2018 to the OPs. The OPs assured that all risks of life including death shall make the payment, so the complainant took the version as true and signed the proposal form. It is further alleged that all the requisite formalities were completed by the Ops prior to issuance of policy including the complainant was got medically examined by approved Medical officer of the company, but diagnosed/observed no disease at that relevant time which debarred the complainant from taking the policy and after considering all the relevant facts Ops-company issued the policy No.NP 011709106023 for which company cannot resile the terms and conditions are biding to the OPs. It is further alleged that the claim of the complainant was wrongly and illegally repudiated on dated 28.03.2018 on flimsy grounds so, the act of OPs company is illegal, arbitrary and is deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

 3.          Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. It is stated that this learned Forum has no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present complaint as no cause of action has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum and the policy has also not been issued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is further stated that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. Late Shri Balwinder Singh had applied for a policy by submitting a duly filled and signed proposal form on 15.09.2017 and paid a sum of Rs.24,278/-. The company has underwritten the proposal and accepted the risk of the life of deceased Balwinder Singh under certain terms and conditions covering the risk by issuing a policy, under the plan “Shriram New Shri Raksha” commenced from 21.9.2017, for a sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/-. Once the policy is generated the entire policy documents containing First Premium Receipt, Policy Schedule, Terms & Conditions, will be dispatched to the communication address of the policyholder alongwith a covering letter (which contains option for Free-look cancellation). Thus, in this case also once the policy was generated, the policy document (policy bond alongwith terms & conditions) were dispatched by the office of OPs from Hyderabad on 24.9.2017 to the policyholder through speed post vide POD No.EN443889491IN dated 24.9.2017, which was delivered to the address of the policyholder on 04.10.2017. The OPs received death claim intimation letter dated 22.01.2018 from Mrs. Jasbir Kaur nominee under the policy informing that Mr. Balwinder Singh i.e. Life Assured died on 24.09.2017. This being an early claim which arose within 3 days from the date of issuance of the policy, the company duly scrutinized all the available documents and also entrusted for investigation to ascertain the genuineness of the claim. On scrutiny, it was understood that the policy documents were dispatched to Late Shri Balwinder Singh on 24.09.2017 by speed post and the policyholder died on 24.9.2017, which means he died before receiving the policy document. That being fact, the deceased life assured was not in receipt of the policy documents and not acknowledged the policy terms & conditions. As per the IRDA Regulation 2002 (Protection of Policyholders interest) mandates a provisions to the policy holders to review the policy terms & conditions and in case, they are not satisfied with the policy issued, then they can return the policy documents for its cancellation within 15 days. As such, no claim was payable except for refund of the premium, which was refunded on 27.3.2018 through cheque of Rs.24,278/-. The said cheque was duly received and encashed on 23.04.2018 without any protest. There is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and the present complaint may be dismissed with special costs.

4.             The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused all the record carefully.

6.             At the outset, the first and foremost question arises before this Forum for consideration is “Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complainant or not? The learned counsel for the OPs has vehemently argued that this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain and hear the present complaint as neither the Life Assured was resident of Kurukshetra nor he purchased the policy in question from Kurukshetra, as such, no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has submitted the death claim request in the office of OP No.2 and since branch office of OPs is situated at Kurukshetra, therefore, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. It is admitted fact that the Life Assured was resident of village Kakrala Anayat, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. Moreover, from the perusal of Proposal Form Ex.R1 ‘duly filled in and signed by the Life Assured, it is evident that the Life Assured had purchased the policy in question from Karnal. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not produced any document on the case file to establish that any cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum at Kurukshetra. Even if, it is presumed that the branch office of OPs is situated at Kurukshetra, but mere branch office does not create any jurisdiction at Kurukshetra, until and unless the cause of action arises at Kurukshetra. In this regard, we can rely upon the case law titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala-The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission”.

7.             Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case and the case law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, we are of the considered opinion that since no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum at Kurukshetra, therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. Thus, we have no option except to dismiss the same. Accordingly, without going into the other merits of the case, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction, if so advised, and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint, shall be exempted. The complainant can obtain all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and Assistant is also directed to handover the same, if any, attached with the complaint after retaining photocopy of the same on the file. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:11.10.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.