Punjab

Sangrur

CC/283/2015

Bhupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajnish K.Verma

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    283

                                                Instituted on:      05.05.2015

                                                Decided on:       07.10.2015

 

Bhupinder Singh son of Paramjeet Singh son of Hardyal Singh, R/o Village Laddi, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     ICICI Bank Limited, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rajnish Verma, Adv.

For OPs.                   :       Shri GS Shergill, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Bhupinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one buffalo after raising the loan from OP number 1 and the same was got insured from OP number 2 and the OP number 2 also put identification tag number 100017875. It is further averred that the buffalo in question suddenly fell ill and died on 22.11.2013 during the subsistence of the insurance policy and intimation of death of the buffalo was duly given to the OP and the post-mortem on the dead body of the buffalo was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Ghabdan. It is further averred that the employees of OP number 2 also verified the death of the buffalo.  It is further averred that the OPs also deputed the surveyor, who visited the house of the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant submitted all the documents along with tag in question to the OP number 2, but the OP number 2 illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 5.2.2014. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.60,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death of the buffalo till realisation. Further the complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Op number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and has been made to injure the interest and reputation of the OP. It is stated that as on 19.6.2015 an amount of Rs.21,532/- is due against the complainant and the complaint has been filed only to harass the OPs.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- from the OP for purchasing animals and the same were got insured from OP number 2.  It is stated that the claim amount, if any is payable then the same is payable by OP number 2. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and there is no deficiency in service. It is stated that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as per the survey report and the documents, the animal in question was sick for the last 40 days before the death and was got treated from Mr. Ranjit Singh for 30 days and Dr. Yogesh for 10 days. It is stated that the animal was not taken to any authorised veterinary doctor for treatment due to which condition of the animal deteriorated and ultimately died on 22.11.2013, as such, the claim is not payable in view of clause 8 of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is admitted that the animal in question was insured with the OP for Rs.50,000/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is stated that after receiving the intimation of death of the buffalo, the OP appointed Shri Hardeep Singh surveyor, who visited the premises of the complainant and got the necessary documents.  During the survey, it was disclosed by the complainant that the same was treated by Mr. Ranjit Singh for thirty days and by Dr. Yogesh for 10 days, as such it is stated that the claim is not payable. Any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 copies of treatment certificate, Ex.C-5 copy of post-mortem certificate, Ex.C-6 copy of claim form for cattle insurance, Ex.C-7 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12 photographs, Ex.C-13 copy of bank statement, Ex.C-14 copy of payment of instalment receipt, Ex.C-15 and Ex.C-16 copies of payment instalment receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.Op2/2 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.OP2/3 copy of certificate, Ex.OP2/4 copy of survey report, Ex.Op2/5 copy of cover note, Ex.OP2/6 copy of terms and conditions and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his buffalo in question from OP number 2 by paying the requisite premium. It is also an admitted fact that the buffalo in question was bearing tag number 100017875.  It is further not in dispute between the parties that the buffalo in question died on 22.11.2013 during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have repudiated the claim of the insured buffalo on the false ground that the same was sick from the last 40 days and was getting treatment from Mr. Ranjit Singh and Dr. Yogesh, as such, the learned counsel for OPs has contended that the claim has rightly been rejected.

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the whole complaint file including the post mortem certificate, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5, which clearly shows that Dr. Yogesh Bhardwaj  of CVH Ghabdan conducted the post mortem on the dead animal and found that above said animal died of chronic diffuse peritonitis.  There is nothing in the said document that the animal in question was being getting treatment from the last forty days.   Further the OP number 2 has not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the complainant was getting treated the buffalo in question from Mr. Ranjit Singh for thirty days and from Dr. Yogesh for 10 days before the death of the buffalo in question.  Moreover, if the complainant got treated the buffalo, then we feel that it has no adverse effect for payment of the insurance claim. It is obvious that if the buffalo of the complainant fell ill, then he is duty bound to get the same treated from the doctor.    Ex.C-2 is the copy of certificate of insurance showing that the complainant got insured the cow in question. Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12 are the photographs of the dead animal.  Moreover, a bare perusal of the reply filed by OP number 2 clearly shows that the reply has been filed in very casual manner, as the OP number 2 has mentioned the word ‘cow’ , whereas in the present case the dispute is of a ‘buffalo’ and not of a cow.  Under these circumstances, we feel that the Op number 2 is deficient in repudiating the rightful claim of the buffalo of the complainant.

 

8.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- being the insurance claim on account of death of the insured buffalo in question along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 05.05.2015 till its realisation.  OP number 2 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 7, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member