SRILATHA Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(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 alongwith territorial jurisdiction and thereby papers were placed before us to decide the territorial jurisdiction for maintainability of the complaint.

(3.) THE complainant's husband was having the Home Safe Plus Secure Mind Policy covering his housing loan for certain specified illness/diseases. The complainant's 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. 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 alongwith 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 complainant's husband K.R.Ravishankar on 11.7.2007 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 alongwith 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 Company's 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 SI. 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 Ombudsman's 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 alongwith 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 v . National Insurance Company Limited Under Section 17(2)(b) of the act as follows: