Complainant Balwinder Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to make the payment of the insurance claim against the policy bearing No. IL 100062009 on account of death of his cow. Complainant has prayed that opposite parties be directed to pay the interest at the rate of 18% Per Annum from the date of death of the cow till its actual realization in his favour. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties, all in the interest of justice.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a poor person and was owner of a Cow having light black colour which was got insured by him with the opposite party and paid the requisite premium. Opposite party issued the policy to the complainant in this regard bearing Policy No. I L 100062009 and under the said policy opposite party insured the cow of the complainant and at the time of insurance of the cow opposite party allured the complainant that in case of any injury or mishappening with the cow the Company would make the payment of the insurance claim to the complainant. It was pleaded that complainant got conducted the medical check up of his cow from the Govt. Veterinary Officer (Doctor) or other Staff of C.H.C. Udhanwal, Block Shri Hargobindpur, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. It was pleaded that on 20.11.2014 unfortunately the cow of the complainant has died due to pain in its stomach and the postmortem of the cow was conducted by the concerned Doctor-cum-Veterinary Officer, Udhanwal. It was further pleaded that the death of the cow was due to pain in the stomach and it was a natural death. It was pleaded that after the death of the cow the complainant was approached the opposite party and furnished the requisite documents for getting the insurance claim but the opposite party procrastinating the matter pending with one pretext or the other and in order to save his skin from the clutches of law and avoiding to make the payment of insurance claim in favour of the complainant, illegally repudiated his claim on the ground that death of the was occurred due to mismanagement of farm or stable but this fact is totally wrong and incorrect as the death of the cow is natural one. It was also pleaded that complainant was harassed by the opposite party as he number of times made requests to the Company for making the payment of the insurance claim alongwith interest accrued thereupon but the opposite party linger on the matter and this act of the opposite party compel the complainant to file the instant complaint. It was next pleaded that due to illegal act and conduct of the opposite party complainant has suffered great mental as well as physical harassment, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. Complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable. The fact of the matter is that cow of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and the claim regarding the death of the cow has been filed by the complainant. It was stated that Surveyor was appointed who submitted his report and as per his report the cow had died due to infection. It was stated that from the perusal of the documents as well as surveyor report the claim has been repudiated vide letter dated 6 January, 2015 on the ground of mismanagement of farm (Animal not treated by authorized doctor). It was further stated that this cause of death is excluded from cover under clause 8 of the policy under which the insurance company is not liable to pay any such claim and the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated. It was also stated that if the Ld. Forum comes to the conclusion that there is any liability of the insurance company then it is only as per surveyor report and as per surveyor report the claim was only payable upto Rs.35,000/- as per the market value but subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was stated the claim of the complainant was repudiated due to breach of the terms and conditions of the policy so company is not liable to pay any claim. It was next stated that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and complainant has concealed the material facts from this Ld. Forum. It was stated that for purchasing the cow complainant got loan from the ICICI Bank but intentionally the Bank was not made the party in this complaint by the complainant and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It was pertinent to mention here that in case of total loss, the payment was to be made to the Bank, if any pending but the complainant has not produced NOC nor made ICICI Bank part in this case. On merits, it was admitted that complainant insured his cow with the opposite parties and the liability of the insurance company was only as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It was denied that complainant got medical check up of his cow from Govt. Veterinary Doctor or other Staff of CHC Udhanwal Block, Shri Hargobindpur. It was also admitted that death of the cow was occurred due to the negligence and mismanagement of the complainant as he has not got treated the animal from the authorized doctor which is against the terms and conditions of the policy so the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 6 January, 2015. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has prayed to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Onkar Singh Claim Manager has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.
6. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the litigants, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the death claim of the insured cow has been repudiated (Ex.OP6) by the OP insurers on account of: “Ground - ‘Mismanagement of farm (Animal not treated by authorized doctor)’ and with Remarks – ‘Death due to mismanagement of farm or stable”. However, the complainant has produced the Treatment Certificate (Ex.C5) duly authenticated by Dr. Rajnish Kumar Yadav, Veterinary Officer, Udhanwal (Gurdaspur) with complete details of the medicines/ injections etc as prescribed/injected during the treatment of the deceased Cow and that subjectively proves that the ailing Cow was duly treated by an authorized doctor (Government Veterinary Officer). Somehow the OP insurers have ignored the ‘Treatment Certificate’ as submitted to them by the complainant along with the insurance claim and that amounts to ‘deficiency in service’ on their part. Moreover, the term ‘management/ mismanagement of farm’ acquires its transpiring relevancy to an ‘animal-farm’ and not to the one single Cow bred by a ‘farmer’ to meet his own milk-consumption. Thus, the OP insurers are held liable to an adverse award under the Act.
7. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties (OP insurers) to pay the insurance claim to the complainant as per surveyor report and as per market value as assessed by the surveyor i.e.Rs.35000/- within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation otherwise the entire awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of this complaint till actually paid.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
SEPT. 15, 2015 Member.
*YP*
