Kerala

Wayanad

CC/09/69

Ealiyamma Paulose,Kavumolayil Veedu,Nenmenikunnu .p .o,Sulthan Bathery - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,United India Insurance Co.Ltd,SulthanBathery Branch,SulthanBathery .P.O - Opp.Party(s)

Adv:Joy Varunny

23 Dec 2009

ORDER


CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/69

Ealiyamma Paulose,Kavumolayil Veedu,Nenmenikunnu .p .o,Sulthan Bathery
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Manager,United India Insurance Co.Ltd,SulthanBathery Branch,SulthanBathery .P.O
Manager,South Malabar Gramin Bank,Kalloor Branch,Kalloor .P.O,SulthanBathery
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. P Raveendran 3. SAJI MATHEW

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:


 

The Complainant purchased two milking cows using a Rs. 50,000/- loan from South Malabar Gramine Bank, Kalloor Branch. The cows were insured with the Opposite Party one for Rs. 18,000/- and the other for Rs.17,000/-. The cow which was insured for Rs.18,000/- as per policy No.101602/47/00/01/00000066 died on 23.06.2008 due to disease. The postmortem was done by Dr. Dayal. The Opposite Party was informed the matter. The Complainant has complied with all the formalities and submitted all the necessary documents to get the claim for the cow. But the Opposite Party send a voucher only for Rs.9,000/- to the bank. The cow was insured for Rs.18,000/- and the Complainant is entitled to get the entire amount. Therefore, the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Party to disburse the entire claim of Rs.18,000/- with 12% interest.


 

2. The Opposite Party appeared and filed version. As per the version, the date of death of the cow noted in para III (1) of the complaint is not true. The date of death is noted as 23.6.2008 in the complaint. As per the knowledge of the Opposite Party, the cow died on 02.8.2008. Before that, on 17.06.2008, Dr. Dayal, a Veterinary Surgeon reported permanent total disability claim regarding the cow and claim form was issued on the same day itself. But the Complainant had not submitted the permanent total disability claim. Subsequently, it is reported that the cow is died. As per policy conditions, in case of illness or accident, proper treatment should be given to the cow at the expense of the insured. In this case no proper treatment or attention was given to the cow and therefore, the 1st Opposite Party is not liable to compensate the Complainant. Therefore, the Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.


 

3. The matters to be considered are as follows.

  1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

  2. Whether the Complaint is entitled for any relief?


 

4. Point No.1:- The main contention raised by the Opposite Party is that the date of death is not correct and no proper treatment or care is given to the cow. They also state that they are liable to pay only 50% of the claim if the cow is not pregnant or not in milk production. It is true that at the beginning part of the complaint, the date of death is shown as 23.6.2008. But in other parts of the Complainant, the date of death of the animal is shown as 02.08.2008. OPW1 is the doctor who had done the postmortem of the cow. The doctor in the cross-examination has deposed that he had treated the cow even one month before 31.07.2008. He himself had treated the cow at all times of ailment. He depose that the calving was on 11.5.2008 and the cow would have been at good milk producing condition if the disease was not happened. This policy is a non scheme policy also. So there is no reason for denying the full amount of insurance to the Complainant. Hence the point No.1 is found against the 1st Opposite Party.


 

5. Point No. 2:- The Complainant is entitled to get the full amount of insurance Rs.18,000/- from the 1st Opposite Party. The Complainant is also entitled for compensation also.

 

Hence the 1st Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand only) to the Complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The 1st Opposite Party is also directed to pay an interest at the rate of 10% on the insurance amount Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand only) from the date of complaint till payment. The Opposite Party is also entitled to get a compensation of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) from the 1st Opposite Party. No order as to costs.


 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 23rd December 2009.


 


 

PRESIDENT: Sd/-


 


 

MEMBER- I : Sd/-


 


 

MEMBER-II: Sd/-


 


 

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Ealiyamma Paulose Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Dr. Dayal Veterinary Surgeon.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Policy. dt:11.4.2008.

A2. Copy of Settlement Intimation Voucher.

A3. Copy of Photo.

A4. Photo.

A5. Copy of Cash Bill. dt:10.5.2008.

A6. Copy of Cash Bill. dt:12.5.2008.

A7. Copy of Prescription.

A8. Copy of Prescription. dt:13.6.2008.

A9. Copy of Cash Bill. dt:13.6.2008.

A10. Copy of Cash Bill. dt:13.6.2008.


 

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Letter. dt:17.6.2008.

B2. Claim Form

B3. Veterinary Certificate. dt:03.8.2008.




......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................P Raveendran
......................SAJI MATHEW