Delhi

New Delhi

CC/303/2019

MS. KANTI DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. LIC OF INDIA. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jan 2020

ORDER

                   

 

                                    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                   (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                   ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                        NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.303/2019                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

                 Ms. Kanti Devi,

                 R/o BA-8E,

               DDA Flats, Munirka,

               New Delhi-67.

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.     LIC of India,

Zonal Office, Jeeva Bharti,

Tower-II, 124,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-01.

 

2. The Zonal Manager,

Life insurance Corpn. Of India,

North Central Zonal Office,

16/27, Civil Lines,

             Kanpur(UP)

(Service to be effected through its Authorized Representative).

 

                                                                                                                                                                             …....OPPOSITE PARTIES

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPS under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986,. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is the nominee of the DLA in policy bearing No.266727409 issued by the OP-2. The DLA(Deceased Life Assured) Mr. Deepak Juyal   had paid two premiums towards the above said policy and unfortunately he died on 20.1.2016 due to Vardio Pulmonary Arrest.  After his death, the complainant being the nominee applied for assured amount of policy taken by her son to the OP-2.    The complainant completed all the formalities and submitted all the required documents  including medical treatment paper of DLA with OP-2  but OP-2 repudiated the claim of complainant  vide letter dt.23.3.2019, on the  grounds of non-disclosure of material facts by the DLA about a pre-existing disease, as the insured stated his current state of health to be “good” in the proposal form. Despite several requests and follow up OPs failed to resolve the matter of complainant, hence this complaint.

 

2.     Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by the complainant that  OP-1 has  its office at Connaught Place, New Delhi,  within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter.

3.     In the present case, the  policy was issued from the Agra Office  of OP which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The cause of action i.e. the repudiation of the claim by the OP is also from the Agra office of OP Co. which also does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any documents which proves that any cause of action or part of it arose from the office of the OP-1 situated at Connaght Place, New Delhi, hence, neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the  territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum.

On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. 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 Ld.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.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]

 

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

 

4.     We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical case (Supra). The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on16/01/2020.

 

 ( ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                                         (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                      (H M VYAS)

                                               MEMBER                                                    MEMBER