BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 57/2011 Filed on 01.03.2011

Dated : 15.07.2011

Complainants :

1. Anand Stanly, T.C 12/191, Sayoojyam, Kunnukuzhy, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Emma Stanly, T.C 12/191, Sayoojyam, Kunnukuzhy, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

(By adv. R. Suja Madhav)

Opposite parties :

1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office Oriental House, P.B. No. 7037, A25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

    

2. The Divisional Manager, M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bangalore.

    

3. The Divisional Manager, M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rohini Buildings, Thakaraparambu Road, Thiruvananthapuram-695 023.

    

   (By adv. Varkala B. Ravikumar)

    

4. M/s Parekh Health TPA Pvt. Ltd., 3 A, Gundecha Onclave, Kherani Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072.

This O.P having been heard on 14.07.2011, the Forum on 15.07.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

The complainants have filed this complaint against the opposite parties for insurance reimbursement along with compensation and costs.

The opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed a joint version and have raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

Hence the issue of maintainability was heard as a preliminary issue and the following order is passed.

The main contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that, no part of the cause of action has occurred within the jurisdiction of this Forum and that the policy was issued at Bangalore, treatment was availed at Ernakulam and the claim was repudiated by the 4^th opposite party at Mumbai. That the 3^rd opposite party is in no way connected with this case at any stage and that they have been unnecessarily included as a party as the mere existence of a branch office of the Oriental Insurance Company within the jurisdiction of this Forum does not confer territorial jurisdiction to this Forum unless any part of the cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

The learned counsel for the complainant had contended that, the 2^nd complainant had made the complete follow ups through the 3^rd opposite party and had clarified the queries in respect of the treatment so as to get the claim sanctioned and that she had requested the 3^rd opposite party to reconsider and settle the claim several times through telephone and personal visits but was in vain.

We have considered the contention raised by both parties and have gone through the documents produced by the parties which are on record. No documents are seen produced by the complainants to support their contention that the 2^nd complainant has been in contact with the 3^rd opposite party for follow ups through 3^rd opposite party. But the aspect for consideration is whether any part of the cause of action has arisen with the jurisdiction of this Forum and whether the complainants have any transaction with the 3^rd opposite party. On a bare perusal of the complaint, it could be found that the place where the policy was taken, the place where the treatment was done and the place where the repudiation was done were all outside Thiruvananthapuram which is outside the jurisdiction of this Forum. There is no cause of action arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The 3^rd opposite party has no role in this case. No dealings are done in the 3^rd opposite party's office before the repudiation of the claim. Further there has been no evidence to show that there is any communication or transaction with the 3^rd opposite party regarding the policy.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is found to be not maintainable before this Forum as this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case.

Hence the complaint is returned to the complainant to be filed before the appropriate Forum for redressal of grievances if any as this is not maintainable before this Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of July 2011.

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER