BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 449/2003 Filed on 13.11.2003 Dated : 17.08.2009 Complainant: Sathiya Das residing at Kaliyal Kettiya Thanponnankala, Kanjiramkulam.
(By adv. S.R. Thankaraj) Opposite party:
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Neyyattinkara (Hospital Junction).
(By adv. R. Jagadish Kumar)
This O.P having been heard on 10.07.2009, the Forum on 17.08.2009 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant in this case is Sathiya Das and the opposite party is United India Insurance Company Ltd. As per the instigation made by the opposite party the complainant had taken policy No. 1067/1999 forming part of master policy No. 100100/47/12/11/2001/98 as per the Kamadhenu Insurance Scheme on 29.04.1999. As per this scheme, the opposite party introduced three sections of Insurance Benefit Scheme (i) Cattle Insurance Scheme, (ii) Accident Death Compensation Section and (iii) Medical reimbursement for hospitalisation which was implemented through animal husbandry department, Government of Kerala jointly with local administration, because the cow loan was given under the scheme of below poverty line. The period of the insurance scheme is 29.04.1999 to 28.04.2002. At the time of taking the insurance policy, the opposite party inspected the insured and his cow by doctors and a certificate was also given to the complainant by the opposite party that there was no disease. The complainant purchased the cow for Rs. 10,000/-. On 25.01.2002 the above insured cow fell ill due to Madi Neeru disease and it was treated by the Government Veterinary Doctor on the same day and the treatment continued till 12.03.2002. From the result of the disease, the doctor certified that the cow has lost “permanent incapacity to conceive or yield milk”. With the instruction of the doctor the cow was sold to the butcher for Rs. 1,500/- in the presence of the Kanjiramkulam Panchayat President and the Ward Member. The complainant filed an application for the claim before the insurance company. But the opposite party was not ready to give the insurance benefit. The opposite party dismissed the petition on the ground that the cow has no disease or not lost yielding milk and issued a letter that the cow has lost only one quarter and yielding 3 quarter. Hence the claim petition cannot be considered. Hence this complaint. As per the complainant he is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as the insured amount and Rs. 5,000/- as treatment expenses and he claimed Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. Opposite party filed their version stating that the insured cow never incapacitated to conceive or yield milk. The cow had no disease and it had capacity to conceive milk. They alleged that the complainant wanted to sell the cow to butcher, fetch money and under the shelter of the insurance policy he sold the cow. The complainant is trying to misuse the provisions of this benevolent statute for getting illegal gain. The claim is false and vexatious and is purely experimental in nature. Hence the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 5 documents. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence. From the side of the complainant, the Veterinary doctor who treated the cow was examined as witness. Points that would arise for consideration are:- Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party? Whether the repudiation of claim made by the opposite party is legal or valid? Reliefs and costs.
In this case to prove the contentions of the complainant he has produced 5 documents. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the photocopy of certificate of Insurance-Kamadhenu Insurance Scheme. In this document the name of the insured is Sathya Das. Period of insurance 3 years from 29.04.1999 to 28.04.2002 and policy No. is 1067. As per this policy, the sum insured is Rs. 10,000/-. As per this document the complainant has claimed only Rs. 10,000/- for his cow. Ext. P2 is the photocopy of livestock claim certified by Government Veterinary Surgeon. He has certified that from 25.01.2002 to 12.03.2002, he has attended the complainant's cow for the disease accute mastitis. Ext. P3 is the photocopy of claim form. Ext. P4 is the photocopy of claim repudiation letter dated 22.04.2002. The reason for the repudiation is stated that “the cow has lost only one quarter and yielding on 3 quarters.” Ext. P5 is the photocopy of letter dated 27.05.2002 issued by the opposite party informing the complainant that they had sent the application of the complainant to the Divisional Office to re-consider the claim of the complainant before Claim Committee. But thereafter there was no reply from the side of opposite party. The complainant filed this complaint before this Forum on 13.11.2003 i.e; after 1½ years from the date of Ext. P5 letter. At the time of examination, the Veterinary Doctor who treated the cow stated as follows: “പശുവിനെ ഞാന് ഒന്നര മാസം ചികില്സിച്ചു. ചികില്സയ്ക്ക് ശേഷം പശുവിന് അസുഖം കുറഞ്ഞോ? (Q) അസുഖം കുറഞ്ഞു. പക്ഷേ ഒരു പശുവിനെ കൊണ്ട് എന്താണോ ഉദ്ദേശിക്കുന്നത് ആ ഉദ്ദേശിച്ച പാല് കിട്ടുകയില്ല. വളര്ത്തുന്നത് ലാഭകരമല്ല. ടി പശുവിന് അസുഖം ഇല്ലായിരുന്നെങ്കില് 15-16 ലിററര് പാല് കിട്ടുമായിരുന്നു. ചികില്സയ്ക്ക് ശേഷം ആദായകരമല്ലാത്ത രീതിയില് പാല് കിട്ടുന്നതായിട്ടാണ് ഞാന് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയത്”. From the above said deposition of the doctor we can understand that the complainant will sustain loss if he rears the said cow in such a condition. Since the complainant is left with no other option than to sell it, may be that is the reason the complainant sold the cow to the butcher for Rs. 1,500/-. Therefore as an insured cow the insurance company is liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant for the loss due to the cow. From the evidences adduced by the complainant in this case the complainant had already received Rs. 1,500/- from the butcher. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the insurance amount from the opposite party after deducting Rs. 1,500/-. The opposite party is bound to pay the insured amount to the complainant, but the opposite party did not pay the amount to the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed. In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 8,500/- with 9% annual interest from 22.04.2002, the date of repudiation. There is no separate order for compensation since interest is awarded. The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1,500/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter the entire amount shall carry 12% annual interest. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 17th day of August 2009. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 449/2003 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW2 - Dr. Prathapachandran. D II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Copy of certificate of insurance-Kamadhenu Insurance Scheme. P2 - Copy of livestock claim certified by Government Veterinary Surgeon P3 - Copy of cattle claim form. P4 - Copy of claim repudiation letter dated 22.04.2002 P5 - Copy of letter dated 27.05.2002 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
