O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The complainant’s case is that she had insured her cow on 8.12.08 vide Policy No.442301/47/2009/41262 issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  The said policy is a joint venture of the Kerala Govt. and the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant had taken this policy as per the direction of the 1^st opposite party.  At the time of taking the policy, the 2^nd opposite party had assured that they will indemnify the policy holder in case of any loss to the complainant due to the insured cow including infertility of the insured cow.  At the time of taking the policy the 1^st opposite party had examined the cow and issued a certificate showing that the insured cow has no diseases.  Thereafter the said cow was subjected for injection on several times.  But it was not become pregnant in spite of several injection.  So the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the claim amount.  But the 2^nd opposite party denied the complainant’s claim.  The denial of the complainant’s claim is a deficiency of service and 2^nd opposite party is liable to the complainant.  Hence this complaint for the realisation of ` 15,000 as the insurance claim along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the policy along with cost.  The complainant also claims ` 25,000 as compensation. 

                   3. In this case, the 1^st opposite party has been deleted from the party array as per order in I.A.No.185/10 filed by the complainant.  2^nd opposite party is exparte.

                   4. On the basis of the averments of the complainant the only point to be is considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                   5. The evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit and Ext.A1.  After closure of the evidence, the complainant was heard.

                   6. The Point:-  The complainant’s allegation is that she had insured her cow with the 2^nd opposite party and as per the terms and conditions of the policy the 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant,  in case, the complainant sustained any loss due to her insured cow.  Though she had subjected her cow for injection on several occasions, the said cow did not become pregnant.  Because of the said reason she had sustained loss and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the 2^nd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. But the 2^nd opposite party denied the complainant’s claim.  The above said act of the 2^nd opposite party is a deficiency in service.  The complainant is entitled to get the claim. 

          7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit narrating her case along with one document.  The document produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A1 on the basis of the proof affidavit.  Ext.A1 is the policy certificate No.442301/47/2009/41262 dated 8.12.08 issued by the 2^nd opposite party in the name of the complainant for insuring the complainant’s cow for three years.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.

                   8. On the basis of the complainant’s allegations against the 2^nd opposite party, we have perused the materials on record and found that as per Ext.A1,  the complainant’s cow is insured for 3 years from 8.12.2008 to 7.11.2011.  The complainant’s allegation is that Ext.A1 policy covers infertility of the cow.  On a perusal of Ext.A1, we did not find any clause as claimed by the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant had not adduced any evidence to show that her cow did not become pregnant in spite of injections and she had filed a claim form before the 2^nd opposite party and 2^nd opposite party had repudiated her claim.  Though the 2^nd opposite party is exparte, the complainant failed to prove her case with cogent evidence to substantiate the complainant’s claim against the 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore, we find that this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed.

                   8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

                   Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of December, 2010.

                                                                                                        (Sd/-)

                                                                                                Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                                   (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)              :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                 :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: 

A1     :  Policy certificate No.442301/47/2009/41262 dated 8.12.08 issued by 

             the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                      (By Order)

                                                                               Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Smt. Usha, Charumkarottu,(Near Pramadom SNDP Building),

                       Mallassery. P.O., Pathanamthitta.

(2) Dr. Viji. V.R., Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary,

            Pramadom.

(3) Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            Ramakrishna Buildings, Near Aristo Junction,

            East Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

       (4) The Stock File.