Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/145/2014

kuldeep singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank LTD - Opp.Party(s)

H S Cheema

23 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 145 of 2014

                                           Date of institution : 28/11/2014                                      

                                         Date of decision    : 23.09.2015

Kuldeep Singh aged about 54 years, son of Sh. Bachan Singh, resident of village Jai Singh Wala, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. ICICI Bank Limited, branch near Jyoti Sarup Chowk, Sirhind-Fatehgarh Sahib, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, through ICICI Bank Limited, branch near Jyoti Sarup Chowk, Sirhind-Fatehgarh Sahib, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its branch Manager/authorized person.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at ICICI Bank Towers, Plot No.12, Financial District, Nanakaramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh through its MD/authorized person.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          

 Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :  Sh.H.S.Cheema,counsel for the complainant.      

                Pt. Narinder Kumar, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.

ORDER

 

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                      Complainant, Kuldeep Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Sh. Bachan Singh, resident of village Jai Singh Wala, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant purchased four cattle/cows after obtaining cattle loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP No.1 and also got insured the said cattle with OPs No.2 and 3 through OP No.1. At the time of insurance of the said cattle, it was assured to the complainant that if any mis-happening occurs to any of the cattle of the complainant, then OPs No.2 and 3 will pay the claim. The OPs No.2 and 3 visited the site and issued tag numbers to four cattle of the complainant.  The complainant had been regularly depositing the loan installments with  OP No.1. On 18.06.2014 one of the cattle of the complainant bearing tag No.100019264 had died.  The complainant immediately informed the OPs and thereafter on their directions the complainant got conducted postmortem examination of the dead cow from Civil Veterinary Hospital, village Jai Singh Wala. Thereafter the complainant applied for cattle insurance claim through OP No.1 and submitted all the required documents, in the premises of OP No.1, as per the directions of the OPs and fulfilled all the formalities. But the said claim of the complainant has not been released so far and the OPs are putting the matter aside on one pretext or the other for the reasons best known to them.  Instead of releasing the lawful claim, the OPs issued a false and vague letter dated 10.10.2014 to the complainant and intimated that his claim cannot be settled as the death has been caused due to mismanagement of farm or stable. This act of the OPs amounts to gross negligence, carelessness, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to pay the sum insured of the buffalo i.e. Rs.50,000/-  and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the OPs. OP No.1 in its written reply admitted that the loan was obtained by the complainant from it. It is further stated that the complainant himself got insured their cows from OPs No. 2 and 3 and the claim is payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy and in case any amount is ordered to be paid by OPs No.2 and 3, then the same is payable to OP No.1 as the cattle was under hypothecation with it. After denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   OPs No. 2 and 3 also contested the complaint and filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint they stated that after getting the information regarding death of cow, they appointed Gurdeep Singh Cattle Surveyor to visit the premises of complainant and got the necessary documents. During the survey the complainant disclosed that the cow was sick from the last 15-20 days and he got treated the same from Dr. Manjit Sing, whereas Dr. Manjit Singh denied that he has given any treatment to the animal. It is further stated that the animal was not treated, which leads to the death of animal and which is clear cut violation of the clause 8 of the policy.  Therefore, the claim is not payable. Accordingly, vide letter dated 10.10.2014, the claim of the complainant was repudiated. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copies of pay-in-slip/deposit slips Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-12, attested copy of cattle insurance claim document checklist Ex. C-13, attested copy of claim  form Ex. C-14, attested copy of post mortem certificate Ex. C-15, attested copy of treatment certificate Ex. C-16, attested copy of repudiation letter Ex. C-17, attested copy of receipt of cattle claim document Ex. C-18, photographs Ex. C-19 to C-23, copy of judgment of this Forum Ex. C-24 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs have tendered in evidence affidavit of Meenu Sharma, Legal Manager, Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Arshdeep Kumar, Legal Mananger, Ex. OP-2, copy  of insurance policy Ex. OP-3, copy of survey report Ex. OP-4,  copy of post mortem report Ex. OP-5, copy of treatment certificate Ex. OP-6, copy of letter dated 10.10.2014 Ex. OP-7, copy of terms and conditions of the policy Ex. OP-8, copy of loan account statement Ex. OP-9 and closed the evidence.

6.                   The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present complaint is that the claim of the complainant had been repudiated by the OP No. 2 and 3 on the ground of mismanagement of farm (treatment by unauthorized doctor) Ex.C-17, and based the aforesaid repudiation on the findings given in the surveyor report i.e Ex.OP-4. The ld. counsel pleaded that the said survey report is not based on true facts, in fact the same is a manipulated one. The ld. counsel brought in to our notice the statement dated 20/03/2015 of Dr.Manjit Singh, which was recorded before this Forum and the same is reproduced “I am working as VO at village Jai Singh Wala since 2006. I have issued postmortem certificate Ex. C-15 of dead animal i.e. Cow bearing Tag No.100019264. I have also attested the claim form, which is Ex. C-14. I have also issued treatment certificate of dead animal, which is already Ex.C-16. I have seen the copies of claim form, postmortem certificate and treatment certificate upon which I identify my signatures”. The ld. counsel argued that the doctor has no where supported the contentions of the OPs. He further submitted that the said buffalo of the complainant died due to sudden cardiac arrest and for the same the doctor could not give treatment, as it is evident from Ex-C14. The ld. counsel made a submission that from the act and conduct of the OPs it is well established that the claim of the deceased buffalo was rejected in an arbitrary manner and thus the OPs had committed deficiency of service and the complainant deserves to be compensated.

7.                   On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has submitted that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OPs as the decision is based on the fact finding report of surveyor i.e Ex.OP-4, whereby it has been mentioned that “Dr.Manjit Singh refused treatment, animal not treated, claim repudiated”. The ld. counsel further stated that in case the complaint of the complainant is accepted he cannot be held entitled to the insured amount as his dues towards the loan are still pending.

8.                   After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is merit in the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. In our opinion as per the postmortem report i.e Ex.C-15 and treatment certificate i.e Ex.C-16, it is well established that the said animal died due to sudden cardiac arrest and thus the doctor was unable to give any treatment and the same has been supported by the statement of Dr.Manjit Singh, who had signed the said documents. Thus, in view of the aforestated facts and evidence, the surveyor report i.e Ex.OP-4 cannot be accepted. We find that the OP No.2 and 3 had committed deficiency of service by not settling the genuine claim of the insured dead animal of complainant.

9.                   Accordingly, in view of the above discussions, we partly accept the present complaint. We direct the OP No. 2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per the insurance policy of the life risk of the deceased animal. However, if any loan amount is pending against the complainant then the bank i.e OP No.1 is entitled to the said amount. The complainant is held entitled for a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rs. Ten thousands) on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost. The OPs are directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of receipt of the same. In case the OPs are unable to comply with this order they shall be liable to pay 9% interest Per annum till its realization.

10.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 21.09.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:23.09.2015

(A.P.S.Rajput)                   

 President

 

  (A.B.Aggarwal)   

    Member