IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Forum cannot ignore protest promptly lodged by complainant.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 12-07-2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 358 of 2013 – Surender Kumar Jhamb Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant/petitioner purchased medi-claim policy from opposite party no. 1 & 2/Respondent No. 1 & 2 for a period of one year from 21-11-2010 to 20-11-2011. Complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.2,83,413/- on his treatment from 27-01-2011 to 16-03-2011 in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Opposite party paid sum of Rs.1,61,329/- but withheld balance payment of Rs.1,04,159. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite parties no. 1 & 2 resisted complaint and submitted that complainant purchased policy from Branch Office, Hyderabad, hence District Forum, Sonepat has no jurisdiction. It was further alleged that complainant accepted payment as full and final payment of his claim as rest of the claim was not admissible as per Clause 5.1 of the medi-claim policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party no. 3 did not appear and he was proceeded ex-parte. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed.

3. None appeared for Respondent No. 3 even after service and he was proceeded ex-parte.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that just after receiving payment protest was made and complainant never visited Hyderabad for obtaining policy even then learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and compensation be awarded. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

6. Perusal of record reveals that complainant received payment by letter dated 20-05-2011 of the opposite party as full and final settlement of the claim but he made protest on 25.05.2001, 03.06.2011 and 20.06.2011. In such circumstances it can be held that just after 4 to 5 days of receiving payment protest was lodged and learned District Forum and learned State Commission committed error in not considering protests of the complainant.

7. As far jurisdiction of District Forum is concerned, learned District Forum in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sonic Surgical case rightly observed that District Forum at Sonepat had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and learned State Commission vide impugned order rightly observed that no cause of action had taken place at Sonepat and complaint was not maintainable at District Forum, Sonepat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner never visited Hyderabad but this argument is devoid of force because perusal of policy reveals that policy was issued from Hyderabad Branch and in such circumstances it can very well be said that as policy was issued from Hyderabad and treatment was taken in Delhi, no cause of action arose within jurisdiction of District Forum, Sonepat and learned State Commission rightly dismissed the appeal.

8. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.

**********