State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs M.K. Goel on 1 April, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 180 / 2012
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Divisional office, Jeevan Prakash
Sector, 17/B, Chandigarh
Through Manager (Legal)
Divisional office
Nehru Colony, Haridwar Road, Dehradun
......Appellant/ Opposite Party
Versus
Shri M.K. Goel
S/o Shri Beni Prashad Goel
R/o House No. D-99, Sector-IV
Defense Colony, Dehradun
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Respondent in person
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 01/04/2013
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, allowing the consumer complaint No. 171 of 2012 and directing the opposite party-Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 4,200/- against the mediclaim, Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which the complainant has also been held entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment.
2. The consumer complaint decided by the District Forum pertains to a dispute regarding repudiation of a claim submitted by Sh. M.K. Goel, 2 the complainant, to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short "L.I.C. of India"), Divisional office, Chandigarh - opposite party under a Group Medical Scheme for himself and his wife. According to the complainant, on the advice of the doctor, his wife underwent a M.R.I. test for which he had paid a sum of Rs. 4,200/- and had submitted the claim for reimbursement to the opposite party. The opposite party repudiated the complainant's claim on a flimsy ground. The complainant requested to reconsider the matter, but the opposite party did not settle his claim and, thus, made deficiency in service. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, Dehradun, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint vide its judgment and order dated 09.11.2012 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in person and also perused the material placed on record.
4. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the District Forum, Dehradun, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. Referring to Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.; IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum has made a gross legal error by holding that it has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. He also referred to a judgment and order dated 04.08.2010 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 88 of 2009, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Harish Chandra Joshi.
5. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the case was contested by the Manager (Legal), L.I.C. of India, Divisional office, Dehradun and the opposite party has also filed the appeal through the Manager (Legal), L.I.C. of India, Divisional office, Dehradun. Thus, the 3 District Forum has not erred by entertaining the consumer complaint. The respondent also submitted, as argued before the District Forum, that there is a Branch Office of L.I.C. of India in Dehradun and Vakalatnama has also been signed by the Manager (Legal) of L.I.C. of India, Divisional office, Dehradun. Further, after retirement, the respondent has settled down at Dehradun and the opposite party has sent the demand notice for the year 2011-12 at his Dehradun's address. The premium of the said mediclaim scheme has also been paid through the cheque of HDFC Bank, Dehradun. Thus, the cause of action or part of it has arisen in Dehradun and, therefore, the District Forum, Dehradun has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.
6. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent. Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which decides the territorial jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora , reads as under:-
"11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
7. Accordingly, the territorial jurisdiction may lie with the District Forum, Dehradun, only if the L.I.C. of India, Divisional office, Chandigarh has a Branch Office in Dehradun. The L.I.C. of India, Divisional office, Dehradun can not be said a Branch Office of the L.I.C. 4 of India, Divisional office, Chandigarh. This Commission has taken a similar view in its judgment and order dated 04.08.2010 rendered in First Appeal No. 88 of 2009; Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Harish Chandra Joshi (supra) and we have no reason to deviate from this view in the instant case, because the facts of both the case are more or less the same. Therefore, the District Forum has certainly made a legal error by holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. Merely because the complainant has settled down at Dehradun or the demand notice was sent to him at his Dehradun's address and the premium of the mediclaim scheme was paid through HDFC Bank, Dehradun, it can not be inferred that the cause of action or a part of it, has arisen in Dehradun and the consumer complaint can be filed before the District Forum, Dehradun. So far as the argument advanced by the respondent in respect of Vakalatnama is concerned, the appellant may authorise any of the officer of L.I.C. of India, for the sake of administrative convenience, to engage an advocate and for the proper follow up of the case. Merely because the appeal was filed through the Manger (Legal), L.I.C. of India, Divisional office, Dehradun and the Vakalatnama was also signed by the Manager (Legal), L.I.C. of India, Divisional office, Dehradun, it can not be inferred out that the Divisional office of L.I.C. of India, Dehradun is a Branch Office of the Divisional office, of L.I.C. of India, Chandigarh. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 171 of 2012 is dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the consumer complaint before the appropriate District Forum having territorial jurisdiction as per Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)