State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs.Srilatha, W/O.Late ... vs The Manager, Icici Lombard General ... on 28 September, 2012
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Thiru.Honble Justice R.REGUPATHI PRESIDENT Thiru. A.K.ANNAMALAI JUDICAL MEMBERCCSR.NO.1025/2012
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 Mrs.Srilatha, W/o.Late K.R.Ravishankar, 10/14, Sannadhi Street, Thiruvateeswaranpet, Mr.S.Natarajan, Triplicane, Chennai-5. Counsel for Complainant.
-vs-
1. The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd, 84/85, Waltax Road, Chennai-3.
2. Fortis FLT Lt Rajan Dhall Hospital By its Medical Superintendent Sector B Pocket 1 Aruna Asif Ali Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070.
3. Dr.Pinak, Fortis FLT Lt Rajan Dhall Hospital, Sector B Pocket 1 Aruna Asif Ali Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070.
The complainant filed a complaint before this Commission against the opposite parties 1to3 praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,00,000/- with interest in terms of insurance policy, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for the deficiency in service, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice, to pay Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony and pain and to pay Rs.50,000/- as costs.
This complaint coming before us for hearing finally on 18.09.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel the complainant, perusing the documents, this Commission made the following order A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The complainant filed this complaint claiming reliefs against the opposite party relating to the insurance policy benefit which was repudiated by the opposite party and thereby claiming compensation and other reliefs.
2. The Registry of this commission has raised certain quarries regarding the maintainability of the complaint along with territorial jurisdiction and thereby papers were placed before us to decide the territorial jurisdiction for maintainability of the complaint.
3. The complainants husband was having the Home Safe Plus Secure Mind Policy covering his housing loan for certain specified illness/diseases. The complainants husband was hospitalized between 6.10.2009 to 9.10.2009 for certain ailments. Again he was treated at Sampath Nursing Home and discharged on 15.10.2009.
Afterwards he went to New Delhi to join the duty and passed away at Delhi on 1.11.2009 due to Multi Organ failure severe sepsis with Altered coagulation for which when the insurance amount was claimed from the opposite parties and the same was repudiated on the ground that the cause of death alleged to have not covered under the policy conditions and thereby the complainant comes forward with this consumer complaint.
4. We have heard the points for the counsel for the complainant regarding the question of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint by this Commission and on perusal of the papers placed before us along with complaint and from the arguments of the counsel for the complainant we are able to find by that Home safe Plus Secure Mind Policy covering housing loan against certain specified illness/disease was issued in favour of the complainants husband K.R.Ravishankar on 11.07.2007 by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai, on receipt of payment of premium amount for Rs.19,438/- for which also the authorized signatory issued the details under the policy and in the policy along with details of the policy number it is mentioned as Mumbai place of issue and the issuing office also mentioned as Mumbai. The property mentioned for the cover of the house loan policy also mentioned as Plot No 102, Pavani Prestige Sri Shirdi Sai Nagar, Bangalore 560037, Karnataka which is also the same address given for correspondence and it is also not in dispute that the insured died at New Delhi. Only because of the insurance companys address given as Name of the insurer in the cause title of the proceedings before the Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai as it is mentioned as ICICI Lombard GIC Limited, Arihant Plaza I Floor, 84/85, Waltax Road, Chennai 600 003 in Sl.No.4 along with other details of name of the complainant, Policy number etc, the learned counsel for the complainant claimed that this commission is having territorial jurisdiction since the insurance company address given is at Chennai. No paper or material is available or shown that really the ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd, Chennai Branch in this regard acted except to find the details in the Ombudsmans proceedings that for the insurer one Vijaykarthi, Manager, Legal represented and in the Award in para-3 it is stated that the insurer has also given their consent to the Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai to act as a mediator and the complainant for resolving the issue involved in the above complaint. Hence, in view of the submission to the jurisdiction by the insurance company before the Ombudsman, Chennai decided to issue and rejected the claim of the complainant and we are able to find that the copies of the proceedings marked to ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd, Mumbai which actually issued the policy along with other parties. In no way we find that the ICICI Lombard Insurance company Ltd, Arihant Plaza I Floor, 84/85 Waltax Road, Chennai-3 had acted or dealt anything relating to the dispute of the complainant in the settlement of claim of the policy or otherwise whereas only the ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd, Zenith House, K.K.Marg, Opp to Race Course, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034 alone acted in this regard, issued the policy and sent correspondence and repudiated the claim as per the documents filed by the complainant.
Since because in the proceedings before the Ombudsman, Chennai, Insurance company, Branch Office at Chennai mentioned in the cause title along for the purpose of invoking territorial jurisdiction of this Commission we find there is no specific cause of action from that branch of Chennai or part of cause of action arose the complaint cannot be entertained. In this regard we want to stress upon the ruling reported in 2010-2-L.W.914 in the case of Sonic Surgical vs- National Insurance Company Limited Under Section 17 (2) (b) of the act as follows:
Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned 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 learned 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. Singhs Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P.79)
5. In view of the above rulings and for the discussions above we are of the view that the complaint cannot be entertained by this Commission having lack of territorial jurisdiction and the complaint has to be filed before Mumbai or Delhi as the case may be and thereby directed the registry to return the complaint along with papers submitted to represent before appropriate Forum / Commission and the petitioner / complainant is permitted to represent the same before the appropriate Forum / Commission within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the above complaint from the Registry of this Commission.
A.K.ANNAMALAI R.REGUPATHI JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT