IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM,

DATED THIS THE           28^th            DAY OF MAY,2013

Present: Smt.G.Vasanthakumari, President,

Adv.Ravisusha, Member

     IA.102/2013

in

CC.NO.32/2007

Sri. V.R. Prasanna kumar,

Raghuvilas, Adinadu North (P.O),

Karunagappally.                                 - Complainant

(By Adv. B.Krishnakumar, Kollam)

V/S

1.     The Senior Divisional Manager,

 Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd,

Marthoma Buildings, 1^st  Floor,

T.K.Road, Thiruvalla.

2.     Sri. Sasi,

Development Officer,

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd,

Thiruvalla.

3.     The Divisional Manager,

 Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd,

Kollam.

(Adv.S.Dileepkumar, Kollam)

ORDER

Smt. G.Vasanthakumari, President.

This IA has been put in by the counsel  appearing for the opposite party to consider   the  question regarding the territorial  jurisdiction of

                                      (2)

this Forum  to adjudicate the present  complaint   as a preliminary issue in this case  for the proper  ends of justice alleging that the complainant is totally a stranger  to the 3^rd opposite party in this  case, that the Divisional  office of the 3^rd  opposite  party  is no way connected with the subject  matter  in the complaint  and the complainant has no  manner of cause  of action  against the present 3^rd  opposite party in this case that the complainant had  obtained  an insurance policy  from the 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party at Thiruvalla, that  the claim was preferred  by  the complainant before the 1^st opposite party and the claim was repudiated by the 1^st opposite party in this case, that the 3^rd opposite party is no way   connected with the issuance of the above  insurance  policy to the complainant  and the related claim in the subject  matter of this complaint and so the complainant  has to prefer  this complaint before the Consumer Dispute  Redressal Forum  having territorial jurisdiction  over the 1^st opposite party in this case.

          It is opposed on the ground  that the petition  is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that it is true that the complainant had availed Mediclaim Policy  from the 1^st opposite party vide policy No.2005/103 dated. 29.12.2004 under  the instruction of 2^nd opposite

                                      (3)

party   and under the authorization of 1^st opposite party in this case, that at the time of  availing  the policy the 1^st  and 2^nd opposite parties had assured the complainant  that he will get all the benefits  under the policy, that in the month of May 2005  the complainant was admitted to the hospital due to ‘ Mastodatamy’ to his  left year and when the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party through 2^nd opposite party for getting the benefits under the said policy, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties  collected all records  from the  complainant  and send  him back and after few months  the complainant  again approached the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and enquired  about the benefits,  but they neither  considered  his     

grievance nor given  back the records which  he had been submitted  earlier, that even though the policy belonged from the Thiruvalla Branch, it was issued from Karunagappally in which the 2^nd opposite party’s office was working there, that the complainant  was only approached the 2^nd opposite party for taking the mediclaim policy, that the  complainant  was not  known  about  that the policy was belonged  from Thiruvalla office, that the 2^nd opposite party is an authorized  person  appointed by the 1^st opposite  party  to do the works at Kollam area, that on the other hand, since the complainant  is a resident of Karunagappally  he has no

                                      (4)

need  to take mediclaim  policy  from Thiruvalla, that the entire transaction regarding   this mediclaim was held at  Karunagappaly, Kollam  and therefore their petition for maintainability  regarding territorial  jurisdiction  is not maintainable,  that the 3^rd opposite party had not made any attempt  to proper verification of case records or policy, that the 3^rd opposite party  had filed   the written statement  elaborately and it is  showing   that they are  knowing  the entire facts  of the case and  accordingly they can conduct  the case before this Forum and  by filing  this petition regarding maintainability, the   complainant  has sustained mental agony and financial  loss and  if the petition   is allowed it will cause irreparable  loss  and hard ship to the complainant  and on the other  hand the complaint  and records  may be  returned with the liberty to file the complaint in the appropriate forum.

          The  only point  that arises for consideration  is :-Whether the IA is allowable or not?

The Point:-  OP filed the IA on 04-04-2013.  Complainant has not filed  any objection until 17-05-2013.  On that day the petitioner/ OP was heard  and taken the IA for disposal to 28-05-2013.  Meanwhile  on 23.05.2013 complainant  filed the above objection.  Admittedly  complainant had

                                      (5)

obtained a mediclaim policy from the 1^st  opposite party through  the 2^nd opposite party  at  Thiruvalla.  The claim was  preferred by the complainant before the 1^st opposite party and the  claim was repudiated  by the 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is no way connected with the issuance of the above mediclaim  policy to the complainant  and the related claim in the subject matter of this complaint.  So the complainant  has to prefer  this complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum having territorial jurisdiction over the 1^st  opposite party in this case.  It is well settled that “Expression “branch office” in amended Se.17(2) would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen”.  No cause of action against the 3^rd opposite party.  So return the complaint  and   records  to file before the proper Forum.  Ordered accordingly.

Dated this the 28^th  day of May, 2013

G.Vasanthakumari-Sd/-

Adv.Ravisusha-Sd/-

Forwarded by Order

  Superintendent