Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/301

Ravinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Br Manager UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh RS Lakhanpal

24 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/14/301 of 30.10.2014

                                      Decided on: 24.04.2015

 

Ravinderpal Singh S/o Sh.Gurnam Singh R/o Sekhon Colony, Samana, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.   

 

                                                                   …............Complainant

                                       Versus

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,Branch Office, Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                  …................Op

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member                               

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.R.S.Lakhanpal , Advocate

For Op        :                  Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Advocate               

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant had got his 23 cows insured with the Op vide policy/cover / challan form No.143372 for the period 11.8.2010 to 10.8.2014. The complainant had raised the loan for running the dairy  from SBOP,  ADB Branch, Samana and the said policy was got issued from the Op through the said bank.
2. The Op threatened to cancel the policy on 20.11.2013 and sent a notice No.801/13 dated 11.11.2013  to the complainant alleging that the Op had cancelled the policy on account of high claim ratio due to poor upkeep and un hygienic condition of the cattle farm, as revealed from the previous claim reported to them. The complainant gave the reply to the notice having requested the Op not to cancel the policy illegally and on flimsy grounds . It is alleged that the Op had not given any chance to the complainant to  explain his position regarding the condition of the cattle farm and the op arbitrarily and unilaterally threatened to cancel the policy without affording any opportunity to the complainant to satisfy the Op.
3. It is also averred by the complainant that he had already informed the Op regarding the death of his cow having disclosed that at the time of getting the said cow insured on 11.8.2011, the chips were to be inserted by Dr.Kuldeep Singh but due to fracture of his arm he had got the same inserted from some incompetent person and therefore, the same could not be properly inserted. Consequently the same could not be traced out from the dead cattle. The complainant with the help of one Kuldeep Singh traced out the same from the dumping ground of the carcasses of the animals. In the mean time one of the cows of the complainant had died on 2.10.2013 and he submitted the claim with the Op disclosing the description of the dead cow as under: 

Breed:  HFC; Colour: Black-Brown; Age 8 years ; Mark:  Dehorned; Forehead: Black : Teeth:  white; Value : Rs.50,000/-; Tag/Chip No.00070C6V60                   but in order to escape its liability, the Op cancelled the policy on flimsy grounds on 25.11.2013 and the Op failed to settle the claim of the complainant regarding the death of the cow. The post-mortem on the dead cow was performed by the doctor.

4. It is further averred by the complainant that there is no provision for cancelling the policy and therefore, the act of the Op in this regard is unilateral, arbitrary, illegal, null and void. The complainant got the Op served with a legal notice dated 10.12.2013 having requested the Op not to cancel the policy, which was valid upto 10.8.2014 and further requested to settle the claim within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice but the Op failed to respond. Rather the Op sent cheque No.811604 dated 24.12.2013 for Rs.10,654/- drawn upon SBOP  branch Samana on 17.11.2014 towards the refund of the premium. The complainant approached the Op on a number of times to get his claim settled but the Op refused saying that the Op had already cancelled the policy and he is not entitled for the claim. Accordingly the complainant  brought this complaint against the Op  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to settle his claim and to pay him Rs.50,000/- in respect of the insured cow  with interest; to pay him Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.15,000/- towards the costs of the litigation.
5. On notice, the Op appeared and filed the written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia , that the Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the complaint and that Civil court is competent to try the complaint as the complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law and that the claim is not payable for want of any deficiency in service and negligence to be attributed to the Op. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is admitted that the Op had issued cattle insurance policy regarding the risk of 23 cows for the period 11.8.2010 to 10.8.2014, the policy to have been purchased by the banker of the complainant namely SBOP(ADB branch,Samana). It is denied that the Op had threatened illegally and arbitrarily to cancel the policy and sent notice dated 20.11.2013.Notice No.801 dated 12.11.2013 was sent to the complainant having informed him that the policy was going to be cancelled as per condition No.11 due to poor up keep and unhygienic condition of cattle farm and high claim ratio , which was duly replied by the complainant and his policy was cancelled vide letter dated 25.11.2013 and a cheque for Rs.10,654/- on pro-rata basis was sent to the banker of the complainant. The policy has been cancelled legally and as per the terms of the same. It is denied that no chance was given to the complainant for furnishing his explanation.
6. It is denied by the Op that on 11.8.2011 when the cattle of the complainant were insured the chips were to be inserted by Dr.Kuldeep Singh but he had got the same inserted from some incompetent person as his arm was fractured. It is an after thought story concocted by the complainant to get false claim. It is denied that due to wrong insertion of the chip, the same could not be traced out from the dead cattle or that the complainant had traced out the same with the help of Kuldeep Singh from the dumping ground of the carcasses of the animals. It is denied that one cow of the complainant had died on 2.10.2013 and the complainant is entitled for the compensation regarding the same. It is denied that the complainant had submitted the claim with regard to the cow having died on 2.10.2014 and that the same was covered under the policy. It is denied that in order to escape their liability, the Op cancelled the policy on flimsy grounds. It is however, stated that on receipt of the intimation of the claim on 2.10.2013, the Op had immediately deputed Sh.Ashok Kumar, approved Investigator who visited the spot where the dead cattle was lying and the micro chip was taken out from the dead cow by Sh.Kuljeet Singh of M/s Guru Ram Dass Chipping Company of the Patiala and the number of same was found 0006FAZA560, which did not tally with the chip inserted at the time of the insurance and thus, recommended that the dead cow was not the insured one  and thus the claim was repudiated. It is denied that the claim of the complainant was not settled on account of death of the cow on 2.10.2013 despite the policy being operative. It is denied that there is no provision in the policy for the cancellation of the same. After controverting the other averments of the claim, going against the OP, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence,Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents, Exs.C1 to C15 and his counsel closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Smt.Meena Kumari,Sr.Branch Manager of the Op, Ex.OPB, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kumar,Investigator of the OP at Patiala, Ex.OPC, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Kuljit Singh of M/s Guru Ram Dass Chipping Company, Patiala alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP16 and closed the evidence.
9. The parties failed to file the written arguments.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
10. It is the plea taken up by the Op that the insurance policy valid for the period 11.8.2011 to 10.8.2014 purchased by the SBOP(ADB Branch, Samana) banker of the complainant has been cancelled vide letter dated 25.11.2013 as per the terms and conditions of the policy and a cheque for Rs.10654/- was sent to the insured on pro-rata basis. Ex.C15 is the letter dated 17.1.2014, written by Sr.Branch Manager of the Op to the Manager, State Bank of Patiala (ADB Branch,Samana) with a copy to the complainant Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh with reference to letter No.492 dated 28.12.2013 on the subject Cancellation of Policy No.111704/47/11/01/00000254 Policy Period 11.8.2011 to 10.8.2014 A/c Ravinder Pal Singh and informed him that the above policy had already been cancelled w.e.f.25.11.2014 and accordingly they were sending the premium refund of Rs.10,654/- vide cheque No.811604 dated 24.12.2013. Thus, it would appear that the Op had cancelled the policy of the complainant vide letter dated 17.1.2014 and earlier thereto the Op had written letter,Ex.OP1 dated 12.11.2013 to the complainant on the subject: Notice of Cancellation of Your Policy No.111704/47/11/-1/00000254 Policy Period 11.8.2011 to 10.8.2014  and informed the complainant that his said policy will be cancelled w.e.f.20.11.2013 as per policy condition No.11. They were cancelling the policy due to high claim ratio due to poor upkeep and unhygienic condition of his cattle farm as revealed from the previous claim reported to them. It was also informed that the company  will not be liable for any loss/damage/liability against the said policy.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has not sought any relief against the cancellation of the policy and that the complainant has sought the relief regarding the settlement of his claim with regard to the insured cow having died on 2.10.2013. Ex.C10 is the copy of the Live Stock Claim Form lodged by the complainant  attached with veterinary certificate,Ex.C9. In both Exs.C10 and C9, the description of the cow has been given as under:

Sex:   F, Tag No.00070C6D60, Breed:       HFC, Colour:       Black Brown, Marks:          Dehorned, Forehead:     Black,         Ears: Black, Udder:       White Black, Teeth:          White, Age: 8 years.

12. Ex.OP9 , is the copy of the letter sent through registered post bearing No.889/13 by the Op to State Bank  of Patiala, ADB Branch Samana A/C Ravinder Pal Singh S/o Gurnam Singh,Sekhon Colony, Samana, District Patiala, Punjab on the subject: Your claim No.111704/47/13/01/90000030 Srl.No.1 Policy No.111704/47/11/01/00000254  and informed, “ Please  note that your file stands closed  on account of Sr.No.1 and 3 below:

(1)     Inspite of letters/reminders sent to you, you have not complied with the required papers/documents.

(2)     As you have withdrawn your claim by giving your consent through your letter dated_____we are closing your claim-file as No Claim.

(3)     We are closing your claim-file, on account of the following reason:-

          As per investigation report and related document  chip No. does not match with the health cert. therefore claim file is closed as repudiate”.

13. Thus, it would appear that the Op has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the chip number of the death cow does not match with the health certificate and therefore, the claim was filed as closed.
14. Ex.OP7, is the copy of the spot verification-cum-investigation report in respect of the death of  HFC breed Cow having died on 2.10.2013 belonging to Ravinder Pal Singh R/o Sekhon Colony,Samana District Patiala pertaining to cover note No.149372 dated 11.8.2011 , given by Sh.Ashok Kumar, Investigator to the Sr.Branch Manager of the Op. As per the investigation/verification carried out at the spot, the chip number was found 0006FA2A560, which was taken out from the dead cow. As per the chip the dead cow was not insured with the Op. It is also mentioned in the report under the heading Insurance Particulars that insured Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh had later on handed over another chip No.00070C6D60, said to have been taken out from the dead cow at the time of the post-mortem by the contractor of hadda rori ( dumping yard of the carcasses of the animal) on 3.10.2013. On page 2 of the report  under the heading identification marks of dead cow/particulars have been given as under:

	Breed	HFC cow
	Colour	Black Brown
	Age of dead cow	8 years
	No. of lactation	Forth
	Horns	Dehorned
	Forehead	Black
	Colour of Ears	Black
	Udder	Black and White
	Switch of Tail	White
	Milk Yield	22 Liters
	Calf at Foot	Female about 4 months
	Market value at time of death	NA, as it is not insured
	Micro chip No.	0006FA2A560

A note is given under the said particulars which reads: “It is observed by me at the spot verification of the dead cow that the all the descriptions of dead cow are tallied with health certificate issued at the time of insurance and its chip No. is 0006FA2A560. Under the heading Postmortem report, it is recorded: “The Postmortem of the dead cow was conducted by Dr.Parminder Pal Singh BVSc., RVO, Incharge CVH, Arno, Patiala on Dt.03.10.2013 at about 09:00 AM and its descriptions stated in the postmortem report tallied with health certificate issued by Dr.Brij Mohan Singh at the time of insurance and also tallied at the time of my physical verification of dead cow on dt.25.08.2013 and found to be same animal which is insured by the company”. Thus from the said verification-cum-investigation report, it has been established beyond a shadow of doubt that the description of the dead cow tallied with the description of the cow got insured on the basis of the health certificate. The Op has not produced the health certificate, on the basis of which 23 cows of the complainant were insured by the Op vide policy No.111704/47/11/01/00000254 for the period 11.8.2011 to 10.8.2014.The said verification-cum-investigation report to have been given by Sh.Ashok Kumar, approved Investigator of the Op, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the same and the same is clinching evidence against the Op that description of the dead cow tallied with the cow got insured. Simply because chip No.0006FA2A560 was taken out from the dead cow by Mr.Kuljeet Singh of M/s Ramdass Chipping Company, Patiala in the presence of the Investigator Sh.Ashok Kumar would not mean that the dead cow was not insured with the Op. It has been explained by the Investigator Sh.Ashok Kumar  in his report that Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh had, lateron, handed over him another chip No.00070C6D60, which had been taken out from the dead cow at the time of the postmortem by the contractor of hadda rori on 3.10.2013 and that the same was taken out by the scanner Sh.Kuljit Singh and the photograph of which was attached with the report. The report,Ex.OP8 to have been obtained by the Op from Mr.Kuljeet Singh of M/s Ramdass Chipping Company, Patiala, to the effect that he had taken out the chip from the dead cow of Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh of Sekhon Colony, Samana on 2.0.2013 in the presence of Sh.Ashok Kumar, representative of United India Insurance Company ,Samana and that the chip bore No.0006F2A560 canot be taken as conclusive proof regarding the identity of the dead cow particularly when the Op has not produced the original chip taken out from the dead cow by said Mr.Kuljeet Singh of M/s Ramdass Chipping Company, Patiala in the presence of the Investigator Sh.Ashok Kumar. The Op should have preserved the same. It is important to note that in the Live Stock Claim Form,Ex.C10 submitted by the complainant before the Op, the tag number has been recorded as 00070C6D60 and in the veterinary certificate,Ex.C9 also the same tag number has been disclosed.Ex.C12, is the copy of the postmortem report given by Dr.Parminder Pal Singh,Rural Veterinary Officer,Incharge CDH, Arno, Patiala. In the description of the animal, it is recorded, Species –cum-breed HFC, Colour, Black-Brown, Dehorned, Forehead-Black, Ears-Black, Udder: white black, Teats-white, Age 8 years, Market value Rs.50,000/-, Microchip No.00070C6D60, date and time of death 2.10.2013 at 11 AM, date and time of autopsy 3.10.2013 at 9AM, External Examination : animal showed no signs of injury. No discharge from……………” Thus, a perusal of the postmortem  report would also go to show that dead cow bore micro chip No.00070C6D60 and therefore, we fail to understand as to how this has come to be recorded in the said verification-cum-investigation report given by Sh.Ashok Kumar, that as per his said verification/investigation , chip No.0006FA2A560 was taken out from the dead cow in  his presence by Mr.Kuljeet Singh of M/s Ramdass Chipping Company, Patiala.Something had gone wrong with the Investigator because it is very much recorded in the report that lateron the insured had handed over him another chip No.00070C6D60 which had been taken out from the dead cow at the time of the postmortem by the contractor of the Hadda Rori on 3.10.2013.

15. The identity of the insured cattle has not to be established merely with the help of the microchip but with the help of the description of the insured animal given in the health certificate and the description of the dead cattle noted in the postmortem examination report. The features of the dead cattle noted in the postmortem report,Ex.C12, qua the chip number tallied with the features of the cattle noted in the Live Stock claim form,Ex.C10 and the Op has not been able to rebut the said features given in Ex.C10, in any way to be wrong. Therefore, no room of doubt is left to say that the dead cow was the same which had been insured by the Op vide chip No.00070C6D60 but the Op in order to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant innovated a plea that the chip number recovered from the dead cattle was bearing No.0006FA2A560, which as observed earlier has not been produced by the Op before the Forum. So much so, in the sarpanch certificate,Ex.C7 obtained by the Op on its letter head from Tarsem Chand Singla,Municipal Councillor,Samana, the tag number of the dead cow  has been noted as 00070C6D60 and the cattle is recorded to have  died on 2.10.2013 and which belonged to Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh s/o Gurnam Singh. In the valuation certificate , Ex.C8 also to have been signed by Dr.Parminder Pal Singh,Rural Veterinary Officer,Incharge CDH Arno, the external appearance of the cattle is recorded as per the health certificate and tag number is mentioned as 00070C6D60 and the valuation certificate is given on the printed proforma of United India Insurance Company Limited. Thus, viewing the case  from any angle it would appear that the dead cow bore tag No.00070C6D60 and the description of the same fully tallied as given in the health certificate,  when one compares the same with the description noted by Dr.Parminder Pal Singh in his postmortem report,Ex.C12 and further verified by the Investigator Sh.Ashok Kumar vide his report Ex.OP7. Consequently, it would appear that the Op had no justification to repudiate the claim of the complainant. We, accept the complaint and direct the Op to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- , the insured value of the dead cow  with interest @9% per annum from the date of the repudiation i.e. 13.12.2013. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-. The order be complied by the Op within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated:24.04.2015

 

                                      Neelam Gupta                         D.R.Arora

                          Member                                   President