THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 321-14
Date of Institution : 6.6.2014
Date of Decision : 10.04.2015
Harjant Singh s/o Natha Singh R/o Village Chahrpur,Tehsil Ajnala DistrictAmritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Branch Ajnala District Amritsar
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., ICICI Bank Tower, Plot No.12, Financial District Nanakram,Gurda, Gachibowli, Hydrabad,Andhra Pardesh 500032
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainants : Sh.Gurpreet Singh,Adv.
For the opposite parties : Sh. Amit Bhatia,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Harjant Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he got his cow insured with the opposite party No.1 vide policy No. 4057/72283306/00/000 for the period from 15.1.2013 to 14.1.2016 with the sum assured Rs. 49000/-. According to the complainant during the validity period, the said insured cattle died on 21.1.2014 inspite of providing better treatment from the veterinary doctor. After the death of the insured cow , complainant lodged claim with the opposite party by fulfilling all the necessary documents, but the opposite party repudiated the claim vide letter dated 7.4.2014 on the ground of damaged ear tag, mismanagement of farm and stable, animal not treated by authorized doctor. Complainant has alleged that the ear tag was in good condition and the condition of the stable is also good and the complainant got treatment of his cow from authorized veterinary doctor .Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay the insured amount of Rs. 49000/-. Compensation and cost of litigation were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant has lodged his claim with the opposite party and the opposite party appointed his surveyor, who after perusing the documents came to the conclusion that the claim of the complainant is liable to be repudiated on the following grounds:-
The ear tags were damaged and as per the terms and conditions of the policy
there was an exclusion clause which read as under:-
8. The company shall not be liable under the policy for compensating the insured for any loss or damage in the following events:-
(I) All the claims received damage ear tags.
(ii) Death due to mismanagement of farm or stable.
3. The surveyor has submitted his report in which he has stated that the animal was treated self for last five days of his death and it was not treated by authorized doctor. As such the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of certificate of insurance Ex.C-1, copy of claim form Ex.C-2, copy of postmortem report Ex.C-3, copy of treatment certificate Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 7.4.2014 Ex.C-5,photographs Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10.
5. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Meenu Sharma Ex.OP1, copy of cover note Ex.OP2, repudiation letter Ex.OP3, claim cum memo Ex.OP4, copy of claim form Ex.OP5, copy of postmortem report Ex.OP6, copy of treatment certificate Ex.OP7, terms and conditions Ex.OP8, copy of surveyor report Ex.OP9,affidavit of Sh.Gurdeep Singh Ex.OP10.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
7. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got his cow insured with the opposite party No.1 vide policy No.4057/72283306/00/000 Ex.C-1 for Rs. 49000/- for the period from 15.1.2013 to 14.1.2016 and the opposite party issued certificate of insurance No./Tag No. 100038728. The said insured cow died on 21.1.2014. The claim was lodged with the opposite party but the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 7.4.2014 Ex.C-5 on the ground that the cow had damaged ear tag and that there was mismanagement of farm and stable. Moreover the animal was not treated by authorized doctor. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the cow before its death was duly treated by the competent Vetry.doctor as is evident from the treatment certificate Ex.C-4 and she had tag intact as is evident from the postmortem certificate of the cow Ex.C-3. The complainant also produced the photographs of the stable/farm Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10 to prove that the condition of the stable/farm was very good where the cow was being kept . Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the following grounds :-
All the claims received damage ear tags
Death due to mismanagement of farm or stable.
9. The opposite party appointed surveyor, who gave his report Ex.OP9 in which he submitted that the animal was not treated by the authorized Vetry doctor. Tag cut fixed with adhesive, as such the claim was repudiated by the opposite party. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the cow in question of the complainant was duly insured with the opposite party vide policy Ex.OP2/Ex.C-1 for the period from 15.1.2013 to 14.1.2016 for a sum of Rs. 49000/-. The said cow became ill and the same was treated by the competent Vetrinary doctor from 18.1.2014 till the death of the cow on 21.1.2014. Postmortem of the said cow was conducted. Postmortem certificate of the cow is Ex.C-3.Claim was lodged by the complainant with the opposite party vide claim form Ex,.C-2 but the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 7.4.2014 Ex.C-5 on the ground that there was damaged ear tag and the death was due to mis-management of farm or stable. Opposite party appointed surveyor, who submitted his report Ex.OP9 in which the surveyor himself has given remarks that the tag on the cow was proper and was properly affixed and he signed the remarks of the surveyor. However, the opposite party in their conclusion which was signed by the surveyor has stated that the animal was not treated by authorized veterinary doctor and that the tag was cut fixed with adhesive. But the report of the surveyor as well as other record produced by the complainant i.e. treatment certificate , postmortem certificate of the cow in question fully prove that the tag of the cow in question was intact and fixed to the cow. The cow has been duly treated by the competent veterinary doctor as is evident from the treatment certificate exbt.OP7, from 18.1.2014 till its death on 21.1.2014. So the opposite party could not produce any cogent evidence that the tag in question was not on the insured cow or that she was not properly medically treated by the competent authority. The condition of the stable in which the cow was being kept before its death is also fair as is evident from the photographs produced by the complainant Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10.
11. So from the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 7.4.2014 Ex.C-5.
12. Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to pay the insured amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
13. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
10.4.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
