Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member):<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for a relief from this Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. The complainant’s case is that he is an agriculturist who has availed a cattle insurance policy named ‘Kamadhenu’ from the opposite parties for his 4 year old CBHF cattle. The policy was issued on 19.5.2003 with ear tag No.53758. The period of coverage of policy was from 19.5.2003 to 18.5.2006 and the sum insured is Rs.10,000/-. The cow had 5 months pregnancy at the time of issuing the policy. On 22.5.2003, the insured cattle did not take food or water and a fluid coming from its stomach. The insured cattle died on 16.6.2003 irrespective treatments, due to the illness. The complainant filed a claim petition before the opposite parties insurance company and surrendered the ear tag, insurance policy certificate and post-mortem certificate with photos of the died insured cow. On 18.9.2003, the claim was repudiated by the opposite parties. The repudiation of the insurance claim of the died cattle is a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to pay the insurance claim along with interest and compensation. The complainant prays for directing the opposite parties to pay the insurance claim amount with interest, compensation and cost.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite parties have filed a common version raising the following contentions. The opposite parties have admitted the policy and its validity. It is also stated in the version that the insured cow was pregnant during the issuance of policy. But in the post-mortem certificate, pregnancy is not noted and hence, the died cow and the insured cow are different. The insured cow was suffering from some ailments and it was treated for more than one month and the policy was taken by suppressing the said pre-existing diseases and under these circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as sought for in the complaint and hence they pray for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.<br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration in this O.P. are as follows:-<br /> (1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as sought for in the<br /> complaint?<br /> (2)Compensation and cost?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complaint and one witness. Based on the affidavit filed by the complainant he has been examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4(b) & M.O.(1) were marked. One witness from the part of complainant who has been examined as PW2. Opposite parties have no oral evidence. After closure of evidence, both sides heard.<br /> <br /> 6. Points 1 & 2:- The complainant has filed this complaint for realising ‘Kamadhenu’ cattle insurance policy amount of his deceased insured cow. The insured cattle died while the policy is alive. In support of his case, he has filed a proof affidavit, based on which Exts.A1 to A4(b) and MO(1) has been marked through the complainant who has been examined as PW1. The opposite parties case is that the dead cow is not the insured cow. The policy was obtained by suppressing the previous diseases of the cow and hence repudiated the claim.<br /> 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party has cross-examined PW1. In cross-examination he has stated that at the time of the death of the insured cow no other cow belongs to him. Before purchasing the cow, the cow was examined by a veterinary doctor and the cow has 5 months pregnancy and is milking and he purchased the cow for Rs.10,100/-. By answering a question put by learned counsel for opposite parties, PW1 answered that cow died on 16.6.03 and at that time if the cow was pregnant, the cow is having been 6 ½ months pregnancy. But he does not know why the doctor who conducted the postmortem did not stated about the pregnancy in postmortem certificate and he added that the ear tag produced M.O.1 is the deceased insured cow’s and he had no other cow other than the dead cow. Further, PW1 stated that the died cow was treated by a veterinary doctor for its illness but the cow was not recovered from illness and fell down not even able to stand. The treatment continues for 17 days and lastly died. PW1 prays for allowing the complaint. <br /> <br /> 8. For supporting the case of complainant, complainant has examined one witness as PW2, and he adduced oral evidence that the died cow is the complainant’s insured cow and the complainant had no other cow at the time of death of the insured cow.<br /> <br /> 9. The documentary evidence adduced from the part of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the repudiation letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant stating that the identity of the insured cow is different from that of the dead cow and therefore unable to consider the claim. Ext.A2 is the certificate of Insurance – Kamadhenu Insurance Scheme, issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s insured cow. Ext.A3 is the postmortem report and treatment report dated 23.6.03 issued by the Veterinary Surgeon Dr. Bennappan, Kaippattoor. Ext.A4, A4(a) & A4(b) are the photographs (3 in numbers) of the deceased insured cow and M.O.1 the ear tag of the dead cow.<br /> <br /> 10. At the time of hearing the opposite parties contended that, at the time of issuing the policy the doctor who had examined the cow certified that the insured cow was having 5 months pregnancy. But in postmortem certificate Ext.A3 prepared by the veterinary doctor has not noted the presence of foetus or the pregnancy in the dead cow. The insured cow is not the cow, which died, or otherwise the insured cow is not the cow, which is subjected to postmortem as claimed by the complainant. So the opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as insurance claim to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 11. To prove the illness and death, complainant has produced Ext.A3 treatment report issued by the doctor who had treated the insured cow and conducted the postmortem. In Ext.A2, 5th column ‘colour’ recorded as brown with white patches. Ext.A4 to A4(b) the photographs of the died cow shows the colour as stated in Ext.A2 policy certificate. There is no dispute regarding the ear tag (M.O.1) of the deceased cow. The opposite parties are admitting the insurance policy of the deceased cow. As per Ext.A2 policy certificate, the insured cow was having 5 months pregnancy at the time of taking policy. Opposite parties contended that in Ext.A3 postmortem certificate, the doctor has not reported the presence of foetus or the pregnancy in the dead cow and the insured cow is not the cow, which is subjected to postmortem. So the identity of the insured cow is different from that of the deceased cow. Hence they are not liable to pay any amount as insurance claim to the complainant. But it is the duty of the opposite parties to prove that insured cow is not the deceased cow. The opposite parties have got every chance to examine the doctor who had conducted the postmortem to prove that the died cow is not the cow insured as per the Ext.A2 policy. Regarding the identity, Exts.A2, A3 and A4 series tally with regard to the colour of the cow. The opposite parties could not prove the pre-existing ailment of the cow or the identity of the deceased cow as alleged by them. Thus the complainant proved his case. So the non-payment of the insurance claim amount of the complainant’s insured cattle is a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. Hence they are liable to pay the insurance claim amount and compensation for the inconvenience, mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant in this regard along with cost. Therefore, the complainant’s prayer in the complaint is allowable.<br /> <br /> 12. In the result, this O.P is allowed thereby, the complainant is allowed to realise Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this petition till this date and thereafter at 6% interest per annum till the realization of the whole amount from the opposite parties. The complainant is also allowed to realize compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) together with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) from the opposite parties jointly or severally. The opposite parties are directed to pay the amounts so awarded in favour of the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of April, 2008.<br /> (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai<br /> (Member).<br /> <br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) <br /> Sri. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) <br /> Appendix:-<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : Prakash.<br /> PW2 : Sivankutty.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:<br /> A1 : Letter dated 18.9.2003 sent by the first opposite party to the complainant.<br /> A2 : Certificate of Insurance<br /> A3 : Post-mortem Report.<br /> A4,A4(a) & A4(b) : Photographs.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.<br /> Material objects:<br /> M.O.1 : Ear-tag.<br /> <br /> By Order,<br /> <br />