IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of September, 2010
Filed on 21.12.09
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.436/09
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.N.R.Karthikeyan, The Branch Manager,
Mannan Nikarthil, National Insurance Co Ltd.,
Pattanakkad.P.O., North of Iron Bridge,
Cherthala, Alappuzha. Alappuzha.
(By Adv.C.Muraleedharan)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainants’ case is that the complainant purchased a milch cow from his neighbor. The complainant availed an insurance policy for the said cow under Gosuraksha scheme from the opposite party. The policy which was in force from 15th November 2006 to 14th November 2009 was for an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only). After a few days, the complainant subjected his cow to artificial insemination on more than a couple of occasions. The said attempts yielded no results. Consequently, either on the advice of the doctor and the consent of the insurance company, the complainant sold out the said cow. Thereafter the complainant preferred a claim with the opposite party. But the opposite party without any basis repudiated the claim. Got aggrieved with this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the disablement as to reproductive system of the cow was reported initially on 15th February 2007 viz. within three months of the coverage of the policy. According to the opposite party, as per exclusion clause No.9 of policy terms the complainant is disentitled to the claim benefit. In this context, the policy claim advanced by the opposite party was repudiated. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the opposite party submits. The complaint is only experimental to procure illegitimate gain. The complainant sold out the cow for Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only). The complainant is entitled to only the balance amount, but in view of the exclusion clause, the opposite party is not liable to pay off the said amount to the complainant. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party, the opposite party forcefully argues.
2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the documents Exbts. Al to A6 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, the Asst. Manager of the opposite party was examined as RW1, and the documents Exbts. B1 to B4 were marked.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of both the parties the issues that come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the Exclusion No.9 of the policy terms is applicable to the case in hand?
(b) If the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. It is worthwhile to notice that the opposite party does not deny or dispute the policy or the selling of the cow. The crux of the opposite party's contentions is that the Exclusion clause No.9 of the terms and conditions of the policy is applicable to the instant case. According to the opposite party, the disablement as to the reproductive system of the material cow had commenced as early as within three months of the availing of the policy. In the said event, the complainant is not entitled to the benefits of the policy, since the aforesaid Clause No.9 keeps out the complainant from all policy paybacks. Keeping in view, the said contention of the opposite party, we meticulously went thorough the materials put on record by the parties. We carefully perused the material Clause No.9, and the other evidences, more particularly Exbts. A4 & A5 brought on record by the complainant. On a plain perusal of Exbts. A4 & A5, it is well revealed that any attempt to subject the cow to artificial insemination will not amount to treatment for any ailment. To put it more specific, the same is virtually an extension of the nurturing of the animal. In this context, the contention of the opposite party that the disablement of the reproductive system of the cow commenced immediately after three months of the policy being issued falls to the ground. It has apparently come out in evidence that the opposite party with out any basis was hesitant to provide the policy benefits to the accused. Needless to say, the complainant’s case stands well-substantiated.
In view of the facts and findings herein above, the opposite party is directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.14,000/- (Rupees fourteen thousand only) – (Rs.20,000 - Rs.6000 =Rs.14,000) with 9% interest from the date of filing of this case before this Forum. The opposite party is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Complaint stands disposed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2010.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Karthikeyan (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The copy of the Gosuraksha Scheme Cattle Insurance Policy Certificate
Ext. A2 - The copy of the Certificate issued by the opposite party dated, 24.09.2007
Ext. A3 - The copy of the Regd. Letter dated, 19.11.2007
Ext. A4 - The copy of the Letter issued by the Govt. Principal Secretary dated, 12.08.08
Ext. A5 - The copy of the Letter issued by the District Veterinary Officer dated, 19.11.08
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext. B1 - The Certificate of Gosuraksha Scheme Cattle Insurance Policy
Ext. B2 - The Certificate issued by the opposite party dated, 24.09.2007
Ext. B3 - The details of Second Opinion issued by Dr.Vimal Zevier dated, 24.10.2007
Ext. B4 - The Regd. Letter issued by the opposite party dated, 19.11.07
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- P.R/-
Compared by:-
