By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The gist of the complaint is as given below.<br /> <br /> The Complainant insured a cow on 06.12.2002 with the Opposite Party. The Policy envisages that if the cow dies or in total disability the value of the cow will be given to the policy holder. During the period of the insurance the cow which was insured was not conceived for two years and the Veterinary Doctor who treated the cow assured that the cow is infertile. The Opposite Party was given application to get the claim whereas on 16.10.2005 a letter rejecting the claim was sent to the Complainant. The reason for such a rejection that the cow insured is having the tag number 3180. The officials of Opposite Party mistakenly written the tag number in the records as 3160. If anything written wrongly by<br /> (Contd......2)<br /> - 2 -<br /> the officials of the Opposite Party the Complainant is not liable. The Complainant has already given the certificate issued by the Veterinary Doctor that the cow is incapable of conceiving, and it was also given to the Opposite Party. The rejection of the claim by the Opposite Party is a deficiency in service. There may be a direction to the Opposite Party to give the Complainant Rs.15,000/- with 10% interest along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and the cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. It is averred that the Complainant had not insured the cow mentioned in the claim form with the respondent. The insured cow belongs Bovine CB brown colour with tag No.3180 and another cow with tag No.0692 vide policy No.570309470301729 for the period from 03.12.2003 to 02.12.2004, was also insured. The policy was renewed from 03.12.2004 to 02.12.2005. In pursuance of the claim form filed by the Complainant the Opposite Party deputed the service of the Senior Veterinary Surgeon immediately to inspect the animal and report regarding permanent total <br /> disability. The claim was forwarded on the ground of permanent disability. The Expert on inspection reported that the ear tag seen on the animal is 3160 whereas the animal insured having policy No.3180, it connotes that the animal which is having tag No.3160 is not insured with the respondent. The Veterinary Doctor also advised the petitioner that the animal is having only temporary partial disability which can be recovered if better management and treatment are done. The policy does not cover the risk of partial disability whether the permanent or temporary. The close 8 of the policy stipulates that the permanent total disability of milk cattle results in total in capacity to conceive or yield milk permanently the claim can be entertained. The Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complaint. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.<br /> (Contd......3)<br /> 3 -<br /> <br /> The points in consideration are:<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?<br /> 2.Reliefs and cost.<br /> <br /> Point No.1:<br /> The Complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.A1 is the notice sent to the Complainant on repudiation of the claim. The ground shown for the repudiation of the claim is the difference in tag number. The animal insured as per the policy is 3180. The tag seen on the animal is <br /> 3160. The request of the Complainant for the claim was for the permanent infertility for<br /> which as per the terms of the policy claim is not given. The Opposite Party engaged the Veterinary Doctor to inspect and report, who is examined as OPW1. Ext.B1 is the certificate issued by OPW1. The opinion on the identification of the animal is with the tag No.3160 the colour is brown aged about 8 years. Further it is advised by the Doctor the animal <br /> is having temporary infertility. The cattle clause attached to policy envisages terms and conditions of the policy. The Complainant is entitled for the claim of the animal which is insured provided with the tag No.3180 more over for temporary infertility compensation is not possible as per the terms and conditions. The Ext.X1 series consists of the report submitted to the Opposite Party. OPW1 the Doctor who examined the cow also deposed that the details of the treatment advised for the cow was not shown to him. The temporary infertility can be cured on treatment. The PW2 is an another expert in veterinary science who treated the cow. According to him the tag number of the particular cattle is 3180 PW2 could not say the stage of the cow when the treatment was given by him. Insemination was done by him but he cannot say whether it was milking period or not it also admitted by PW2 that during the milking period the conceiving can be effected lately. The Complainant cannot establish the claim in bringing forth that the animal which is insured with<br /> (Contd......4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> tag No.3180 is applied for the claim. Apart from that no evidence is brought out to show that the cow is having total permanent infertility. The point No.1 is found against the Complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the side of 2nd Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:<br /> The Complainant is not entitled for the claim from the Opposite Party <br /> as claimed for. The question of the point No.2 does not require detail analysis. <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed and no order upon cost.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1. Mathew Abraham. Complainant.<br /> PW2. Dr. V.M. Jose. Veterinary Surgeon.<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> OPW1. Abdul Karim. Agriculture.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> A1. Notice. dt:16.10.2005<br /> <br /> <br /> (Contd......5)<br /> <br /> - 5 - <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> B1. Veterinary Certificate.<br /> B2. Copy of the letter. dt:07.10.2005.<br /> B3 Series. Copy of the acknowledgement for <br /> receipt of money. <br /> <br /> B4 Series (3 sheets) Claim form and certificates.<br /> B5 Series (5 sheets) Policy.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Compared by:<br /> <br /> <br /> M/ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />