State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sunil Jain on 6 September, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.48 of 2013
Date of institution : 26.07.2013
Date of decision : 06.09.2013
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 46,
BASANT LOK, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI, THROUGH
ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SH. S.K. TAKYAR,
MANAGER.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 136,
FEROZE GANDHI MARKET, LUDHIANA, THROUGH ITS
DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SH. S.K. TAKYAR,
MANAGER.
.......PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. MR. SUNIL JAIN S/O SH. SHANTI LAL JAIN,
2. MRS. KIRAN JAIN W/O SH. SUNIL JAIN,
BOTH RESIDENTS OF 1041, KUCHA R.S. MANGAT RAI,
RACHNA GAS WALI GALI, DARESI ROAD, LUDHIANA-
141 001.
3. MR. PAWAN SACHDEVA, INSTANT HEALTHCARE PVT.
LTD., C/O E-MEDITEK TPA SOLUTION SERVICES LTD.,
PLOT NO.577, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-5, GURGAON
(HARYANA).
Revision Petition No.48 of 2013. 2
4. MAXSECURE, 81-CLUB ROAD, BACKSIDE LAKSHMI
LADIES CLUB, CIVIL LINES, LUDHIANA THROUGH ITS
MANAGER/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
5. E-MEDITEK TPA SOLUTION SERVICES LTD., PLOT
NO.577, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-5, GURGAON
(HARYANA)-122 016, THROUGH ITS
MANAGER/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
......RESPONDENTS
Revision Petition against the order dated
12.07.2013 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the petitioners : Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
Heard.
2. This revision has been preferred by the petitioners/opposite parties No.1 and 5 against the order dated 12.7.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the application filed by them for returning the complaint for presenting the same before the District Forum having the territorial jurisdiction or in the alternative for dismissal of the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction, was dismissed.
Revision Petition No.48 of 2013. 3
3. The facts, to be taken notice of for the disposal of the present revision petition, are that the complainant filed complaint against the present petitioners and other opposite parties for issuance of directions to them to pay the insurance claim and compensation etc. on the ground that they had purchased health policy from 15.4.2009 to 14.4.2010 and the same was got renewed from time to time and on the basis of that health policy, they claimed the reimbursement of the expenses incurred on the hospitalization of Kiran Jain complainant No.2. The opposite parties did not decide that claim and kept the same pending. Written reply was filed by the petitioners in which they took up the plea that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as the insurance policies annexed with the complaint as Annexure-A and Annexure-B were obtained from United India Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi and insurance policy Annexure-C from Ahmedabad and the other policies Annexure D-1 and D-2 from New Delhi and as such, only the District Forums at New Delhi and Ahmedabad had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. During the pendency of the complaint, application was filed by them with the prayer to return the complaint for presenting the same before the Forum having territorial jurisdiction and in the alternative to dismiss the same for want of territorial jurisdiction in which they pleaded that the above said grounds so taken up by them in the written reply. In reply to the application it has been contended by the complainants that the policy certificates were received by them at Revision Petition No.48 of 2013. 4 Ludhiana and the medical treatment was also obtained from that place itself and, as such, a part of the cause of action had arisen at that place. After considering the averments of both the sides and taking into consideration the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") the District Forum dismissed the application by coming to the conclusion that a part of cause of action had accrued at Ludhiana.
4. Section 11 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum to try and entertain the complaints and that jurisdiction is subject to the conditions contained therein. Only that District Forum has the territorial jurisdiction within the local limits of which the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business and where there are more than one party and anyone of them is not actually or voluntarily residing or carrying on the business within those local limits, then the permission of the District Forum is to be obtained or such other opposite party to acquiesce in for the institution of the complaint at that place. That Section also provides that complaint can be instituted before the District Forum in the local limits of which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The finding recorded by the District Forum, for the dismissal of the application, is that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the local limits of its jurisdiction. That finding was recorded in view of the fact that the insurance certificates Revision Petition No.48 of 2013. 5 were received by the complainants at Ludhiana and even the payments were collected from them by the opposite parties at that place itself.
5. Cause of action means a bundle of facts, which are required to be proved to establish a right or liability. The delivery of the insurance certificates and the receipt of the payments towards the insurance premium form part of the cause of action. As the certificates were delivered at Ludhiana and the payments were also received at that place, so it can easily be concluded that a part of cause of action had arisen at Ludhiana itself. A correct finding was recorded by the District Forum and it cannot be held that it acted illegally or with material irregularity while exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. In these circumstances we do not find any ground to admit this revision to be heard on merits. The same is dismissed in limine.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) September 6, 2013 MEMBER Bansal Revision Petition No.48 of 2013. 6