ORDER

14.09.2023

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

          The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the mediclaim policy holder of OP Ins. Co. and had renewed the policy time to time. It is alleged by the complainant that the policy in question was renewed by OP Ins. Co. w.e.f. 25.05.2021 to 24.05.2022.

          Suddenly due to increasing of the weight, the wife of the complainant treating it as danger to her life admitted in Institute of Minimal Access metabolic and bariatric surgery of Ganga Ram Hospital on 20.02.2022, after numerous tests she was finally operated on 20.02.2022 and was discharged on 26.02.2022. It is alleged by the complainant that he filed the reimbursement claim with the OP Ins. Co. Vide letter dated 16.03.2022 the OP Ins. Co. denied the claim of the complainant. On various occasions complainant approached the OP Ins. Co. for consideration of his claim but all in vain. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the OP complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.

          The present complaint case is on admission stage. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Bhupender and have perused the file.

          In the present complaint case  the complainant is the resident of Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, the policy in question was issued from the Gurugram office of OP. The complainant has impleaded Azadpur Delhi and Nehru Place office of the OP in the array of parties.

It is submitted by complainant counsel that since the Azadpur office of the OP false within  the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

           The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission on the ground that OP-1 work for gain within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

          Admittedly, in the present complaint case the complainant is the resident of Tilak Nagar which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. No cause of action arose qua the office of the OP situated at Azadpur Delhi falling within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The 2^nd address of OP is of Nehru place which does not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, hence, we are of the considered opinion that OP-1 is impleaded in the array of parties just to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission.

          In other words neither the complainant nor the cause of action arose qua the office of OP-1 as alleged in the complaint falling  within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and the office of OP-2 does not fall within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

            On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis.  Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

In the present complaint case,  the complainant is the resident of Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, the policy in question was issued from the Gurugram office of OP So, the District Commission having Territorial Jurisdiction over Tilak Nagar, Delhi as well as Gurugram, Haryana would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  

   In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Part Inn in Revision Petition No.575/18 and the legal position discussed above,  we hold that this District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the appropriate Court/Commission in accordance with law.

Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Pronounced on 14.09.2023

Sanjay Kumar                                   Nipur Chandna                                 Rajesh

President                                              Member                                             Member