ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is insurer’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 232 of 2011. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent – complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is serving in Branch Office – I, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Haridwar and she had been provided mediclaim insurance by her employer. The premium of the mediclaim policy is deducted by her employer from her salary and the same is remitted to the insurance company. It is alleged that the complainant’s employer had taken a Group Mediclaim (Tailor Made) Insurance Policy for its employees and their dependents and under the said policy, the complainant, her husband – Sh. S.K. Yadav and two children – Master Abhinav Yadav and Master Abhishek Yadav were insured. It is alleged that during the currency of the insurance policy, the son of the complainant Master Abhinav Yadav fell ill and was treated at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi and a sum of Rs. 2,65,900/- was spent in his treatment. The son of the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 10.01.2011 and was discharged on 11.01.2011. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company for reimbursement of mediclaim expenses, which was repudiated by the insurance company through their letter dated 16.05.2011. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company for reimbursement of mediclaim expenses, which was repudiated by the insurance company through their letter dated 16.05.2011. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the District Forum, Haridwar has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter; that all the correspondence was made by the complainant with the Dehradun Divisional Office of the insurer; that the claim of the complainant was also repudiated by the Dehradun Divisional Office of the insurer; that the claim of the complainant was repudiated per letter dated 16.05.2011 on the ground that the complaint of generalized weakness and pain in hip joint during walking are not such for which hospitalization for minimum 24 hours may be compulsory and the treatment could have been carried out as an OPD patient and that there is no deficiency in their service. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 21.10.2013 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company submitted that all the correspondence was made by the complainant with the Dehradun Divisional Office of the insurance company and the claim was also repudiated by the Dehradun Divisional Office of the insurance company and the complainant has also impleaded the Divisional Office, Dehradun as opposite party in the consumer complaint and, as such, no cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant to file the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar and hence the District Forum, Haridwar had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the District Forum fell in error in discarding the plea to this effect taken by the insurance company in its written statement and wrongly went on to entertain the consumer complaint and deciding it on merit by order impugned and allowing the same against the insurance company. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent – complainant submitted that since the complainant is serving in Branch Office – I, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Haridwar, who was deducting the premium of the mediclaim policy purchased by the complainant from complainant’s salary and was remitting the same to the insurance company and, as such, part of cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant at Haridwar, so as to bring the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar and that the District Forum was perfectly justified in entertaining the consumer complaint and deciding the same on merit vide impugned order. 7. Having considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find force in the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company and we are of the definite view that the District Forum, Haridwar had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the District Forum, Haridwar fell in error in entertaining the consumer complaint and deciding it on merit vide impugned order. The reasons for the above decision are that from the perusal of the consumer complaint, it is evident that the complainant has impleaded the opposite party as, “The New India Assurance Company Limited through Senior Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office 321700, Gulfam House, 8/6-7, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Uttarakhand”. The complainant has not impleaded The New India Assurance Company Limited, Haridwar as party to the consumer complaint. The insurance company has specifically pleaded that all the correspondence was made by the complainant with the Divisional Office, Dehradun of the insurance company and the claim was also repudiated by the Divisional Office, Dehradun of the insurance company, which was impleaded by the complainant as opposite party in the consumer complaint. The complainant has not filed any evidence to rebut the said plea taken by the insurance company. Thus, from the array of the parties to the consumer complaint, it can not be said that the District Forum, Haridwar had territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 8. In para 5 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has merely stated that the District Forum, Haridwar has territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Thus, from the array of the parties to the consumer complaint, it can not be said that the District Forum, Haridwar had territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 8. In para 5 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has merely stated that the District Forum, Haridwar has territorial jurisdiction in the matter. It has nowhere been disclosed in the consumer complaint as to how the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen in favour of the complainant at Haridwar, so as to bring the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. It is true that the premium of the mediclaim policy was used to be deducted by the employer of the complainant from her salary and was being remitted to the insurance company situated at Dehradun, but deduction of premium at Haridwar and remittance of the same by the employer of complainant situated at Haridwar to the insurance company situated at Dehradun, will not confer territorial jurisdiction in the matter upon the District Forum, Haridwar. Had the complainant impleaded her employer – Life Insurance Corporation of India as party to the consumer complaint, then the situation might have been different and the Life Insurance Corporation of India would have been asked to show as to whether there is any agreement between them and the insurance company that the premium should be deducted by them from the salary of the employee and should be remitted to the insurance company and in the event of any dispute, the consumer complaint can be filed before the District Forum, Haridwar, but since the Life Insurance Corporation of India has not been made party to the consumer complaint by the complainant, no such assumption can be made and that no such finding can be recorded. 9. The perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Forum shows that the District Forum has not specifically dealt with the plea of territorial jurisdiction raised by the insurance company and has simply stated that cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant at Haridwar and, as such, the District Forum, Haridwar has territorial jurisdiction in the matter. We are not in agreement with the said finding recorded by the District Forum and in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the District Forum, Haridwar had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 10. We are not in agreement with the said finding recorded by the District Forum and in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the District Forum, Haridwar had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission given in the case of Puran Chand Wadhwa Vs. Hamil Era Textiles Limited; IV (2003) CPJ 26 (NC). In the said case, the debentures were issued from Bombay. Instalments as interest on debentures were also issued from Bombay and the debentures were to be redeemed at Bombay. It was held that no action, wholly or in part, took place in Chandigarh and the Consumer Forum at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the said case, the consumer complaint was filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the bank through which payment for debentures was made or interest was received by the opposite party, who was not carrying on any business within the jurisdiction of that Forum. It was held that the bank is only a facilitator to accept the money and the District Forum within whose jurisdiction the bank is situated, can not have territorial jurisdiction in the matter. In the instant case also, merely by remitting the premium by the employer of the complainant situated at Haridwar to the insurance company at Dehradun, it can not be said that the District Forum, Haridwar has got territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Learned counsel also cited a decision dated 27.08.2013 of this Commission rendered in First Appeal No. 104 of 2010; Commercial Motors Vs. Sh. Vijay Prakash Joshi. In the said case, the complainant had taken a loan from Almora Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Pithoragarh for purchasing a tipper. It was held that District Forum, Pithoragarh had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. While coming to the said conclusion, this Commission has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission given in the case of Puran Chand Wadhwa (supra). Learned counsel for the insurance company also cited another decision of this Commission given in the case of Institute of Management Studies Vs. Arpan Jindal; I (2006) CPJ 408, wherein it was held that mere receipt of letter at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction upon the Consumer Forum of that place. Learned counsel for the insurance company also cited another decision of this Commission given in the case of Institute of Management Studies Vs. Arpan Jindal; I (2006) CPJ 408, wherein it was held that mere receipt of letter at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction upon the Consumer Forum of that place. In the present case also, merely because the amount of premium was deducted by the employer of the complainant at Haridwar, it can not be said that the territorial jurisdiction in the matter lies with the District Forum, Haridwar. 11. Apart from above, even if it is taken that the insurance company has offices all over the country and also has a branch office at Haridwar, then also the territorial jurisdiction in the instant case can not be vested with the District Forum, Haridwar. Learned counsel for the insurance company pressed into service a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited; IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC). In the said case, the fire broke out at Ambala and the compensation was claimed at Ambala. It was held that no part of cause of action arose in Chandigarh and the Consumer Commission, Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to adjudicate. In the said case, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondent – insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section, the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. The Hon’ble Apex Court did not agree with the said submission and held that if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen at Ambala, then too, the complainant can file a claim petition in Tamilnadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. It was further held that it will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench-hunting. Learned counsel for the insurance company further cited a decision dated 03.09.2013 of the Hon’ble National Commission given in First Appeal No. 428 of 2008; New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. It was further held that it will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench-hunting. Learned counsel for the insurance company further cited a decision dated 03.09.2013 of the Hon’ble National Commission given in First Appeal No. 428 of 2008; New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Gopal Gupta, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonic Surgical (supra), has held that merely because the insurance company has a branch office in Chandigarh, this by itself does not give the State Commission UT, Chandigarh the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the said case, the insured premises was situated at Kaithal and the insurance policy was also issued at Kaithal. The claim was filed and was repudiated at the said place. 12. Thus, it is quite clear that the District Forum, Haridwar had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the District Forum was not at all justified in entertaining the consumer complaint filed by the complainant and deciding it on merit by order impugned, which can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the appeal is fit to be allowed. 13. Learned counsel for respondent – complainant cited a decision dated 28.11.2008 of this Commission given in First Appeal No. 22 of 2007; The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Vibha Yadav, between the same parties, but the said decision does not provide any help to the complainant, because in the said case, the issue of territorial jurisdiction was not involved and there is no finding in the said decision on the question of territorial jurisdiction. 14. Since we have held above that the District Forum, Haridwar had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the consumer complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum, Haridwar, we need not revert upon the merits of the case. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 21.10.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside. However, the respondent – complainant, if she so wishes, may file a 9consumer complaint before the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. No order as to costs.