This appeal is directed against the Order dated 11-02-2015, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas (in short, District Forum), whereby the complaint case has been dismissed on contest against the OPs.  Being dissatisfied and aggrieved with such Order, Complainant thereof filed this appeal.

In a nutshell, case of the Complainant/Appellant is that she applied for an insurance policy being floated by the OPs, namely, “BSLI Vision Plan Policy” by signing necessary proposal form in this regard on 19-12-2012.  Subsequently, on receipt of the policy document from the OP Insurance Company, she detected several discrepancies in the said policy.  So, she lodged a written complaint with the OP Insurance Company on 07-02-2013.  After initial dithering, the OP Insurance Company ultimately refunded the insurance premium along with interest @ 10.5% for the period from 12-02-2013 to 04-07-2013, i.e., 4 months 22 days.  According to Complainant/Appellant, she is entitled to get interest for the period from 22-12-2012 to 31-12-2013, i.e., for 1 year 10 days.  Since the OP/Respondent Insurance Company did not accede to her repeated requests to pay the balance interest amount, Complainant/Appellant filed the case before the Ld. District Forum for redressal of her grievance.

OPs/Respondents contested the case by filing WV, whereby they stated that the Complainant/Appellant, after completely understanding the terms and conditions, voluntarily applied for the concerned insurance policy vide Proposal Form bearing no. A47200837 dated 19-12-2012.  In the proposal form, the Complainant/Appellant gave all the relevant details and based on such information, an insurance policy being no. 005885867 was issued in favour of the Complainant/Appellant with date of commencement being 28-12-2012. The policy document was delivered to the address of the Complainant/Appellant on 03-01-2013.  After detecting some discrepancies in the policy, the Complainant/Appellant applied for issuance of a fresh and rectified policy or cancellation of the same.  On receipt of such complaint from the Complainant/Appellant, the OP/Respondent Insurance Company asked for submission of relevant documents.  However, the Complainant/Appellant made inordinate delay to furnish the same.  After receiving relevant documents from the Complainant/Appellant on 11-12-2013, the OP/Respondent investigated the matter and accepted the request for cancellation of the policy and accordingly, premium amount of Rs. 12,000/- was refunded through NEFT transaction on 06-01-2014.  Thereafter, Complainant/Appellant sought for interest and based on such request, the OP/Respondent Insurance Company paid an amount of Rs. 497.10 as interest for the period from 12-02-2013 to 04-07-2013.  The same was credited to the bank account of the Complainant/Appellant through RTGS on 19-03-2014.  Despite receipt of said premium along with interest, in order to harass, victimize and extract more money from the OP/Respondent Insurance Company, the Complainant/Appellant moved a case before the Ld. District Forum.  Terming such case as baseless and illegal, the OP/Respondent Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

The moot point for determination is whether the impugned Order suffers from any legal infirmity, or not.

Decision with reasons

It appears the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint case over lack of territorial jurisdiction as also that of receipt of premium amount together with interest by the Appellant. 

According to Appellant, the instant complaint case was rightly filed before the Ld. District Forum insofar as the branch office of the Respondent is situated at Barasat, that falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.  On going through the cause title of the complaint petition we observe that although the Appellant mentioned the address of the Barasat Office of the Respondent Insurance Company in her petition of complaint, she did not made it a party to the case.  In our considered opinion, mere mentioning of address of the OP is not suffice to invoke jurisdiction.  It is imperative to implead the concerned office as a party to the case.  Accordingly, the Ld. District Forum did no wrong in dismissing the complaint case over jurisdiction point given the fact that all the concerned OPs/Respondents are housed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.

As regards the claim of the Appellant for interest amount for the period from 22-12-2012 to 31-12-2013, we find that although the policy document was delivered to the address of the Complainant on 03-01-2013, she applied for rectification of the same only on 07-02-2013.  Thereafter, although the Respondent Insurance Company asked for relevant documents, viz., original policy document, valid photo identity and address proof, cancelled cheque, copy of communication vide a letter dated 04-07-2013, the Appellant submitted the same on 11-12-2013.  Incidentally, no explanation has been put forth from the side of the Appellant as to the reason for such delayed submission of requisite documents to the Respondent Insurance Company.  All these are clear indicative of the fact that there was great amount of lacunae on the part of the Appellant as well.  In view of such lackadaisical approach on the part of the Appellant, we are of view that the Respondent has rightly paid interest for 4 months 22 days only. 

Thus, we find no infirmity with the impugned order.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that A/769/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent but without any order as to costs.