BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sarain Singh s/o Sh.Menga Singh resident of Village Bahera Tehsil Derabassi Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Manager Department of Misc. Claims, SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

..…Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Sunil Dixit, Advocate for Complainant.

Sh.G.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for OP.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant purchased 13 cows through Punjab National Bank Mubarikpur under the High Tech Dairy Scheme of Govt. of Punjab and these animals were insured with OP Insurance Company vide Policy No.231102/47/2010/0000383. Out of these one cow died on 7.10.2009. The Spot Investigator verified the dead cow and took photographs and identified and submitted his report to the authorized service provider and the same was sent to OP alongwith documents, who refused to accept the document with objection that Financing Bank has not countersigned the claim Form. The complainant approached the Financing Bank but Manager refused to sign with the plea that since bank has not got the animals insured hence bank is not bound to countersign the document. The complainant brought this matter to the notice of OP and completed all the formalities, but the OP Insurance Company did not pay the claim. A legal notice in this connection was served upon the OP but having received no respond. Hence this complaint. 

2.             In their written reply, the OP stated that the dead cow was not insured with the OP. The postmortem report and spot verification of the dead animal is clear, which says that the Electronic Micro Chip (No.0006E3E7A9,) inserted in the animal at the time of insurance of the animal, could not be located in the dead cow. Thus, the dead animal in question was not one out of the 13 cows insured. The complainant has raised claim for the dead cow, which was not insured and hence the claim was rightly and legally repudiated by the OP. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.             The main contention of the Complainant is that despite the fact that 13 cows were insured by him with the OP, the claim in respect of dead cow having Brownish white colour mentioned at serial No.5 of Vety Health Certificate (Annexure C-2) was repudiated by the OP on the ground that the said cow was not the one which was insured with the OP despite completing all the documentary formalities. The OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the plea that the Electronic Chip could not be located as per the postmortem report (Annexure C-3) and spot verification of the animal. Further grouse of the complainant against the OP is that it could not provide the service, assured by it. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Vety Health Certificate the cow at serial No.5 is brownish white in colour, which has also been mentioned in the postmortem report of Dr. Joseph K. Masih. It has further been contended that the complainant has no role either in inserting the micro chip in the body of the cow or to take out the same out of the dead body as the whole work is done by the service provider of the OP Company on its instance.     

6.      On the other hand the oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in its letter to the complainant (Annexure C-5) has objected the deputation of Dr. Joseph Masih for postmortem of the cattle and asked the complainant to clarify the fact that the cow died on 7.10.2009, but the OP was intimated about the loss on 19.2.2010 after lapse of more than 4 months. The complainant was asked to reply these two queries within 7 days in order to process the claim. The complainant replied the same on 19.4.2010. Further, the authorized Service Cetnre has intimated the Insurance Company vide Annexure C-8 that the complainant had intimated about the death of the cow on 7.10.2009 at about 6 pm. telephonically and accordingly the Service Centre directed Dr. Joseph Masih for inspection of the dead animal and completion of formalities.

7.             In view of the above discussion and perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case it is an established fact that dispute between the complainant and OP is only about the identification of the animal which has been insured with the OP.  The complainant has no role in placing or taking out mirco chip from the body of the animal as the same is done by the service provider that too at the instance of the OP, which is clear from the statement of Dr. Joseph Masih in
Annexure-4;that that the description of the cow under reference has been recorded in the sheet No.1 that carries description of 10 cows at Sr. No.5. This cow being typical in colour i.e. brownish white and further it was the only cow of this colour in the whole herd that has died.

8.      From the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the rejection of the claim by the OP is unjustified in spite of the fact that postmortem report as well as spot verification of the dead animal shows that though micro electronic chip inserted in the animal at the time of insurance could not be located in the dead cow but the cow is the same which has been insured i.e. Brownish white in colour as also mentioned in Vety Health Certificate (Annexure C-2) at the time of insurance. Moreover the service provider of the company itself has intimated that Dr. Joseph Masih has been deputed for inspection and completion of claim formalities. The doctor of the Service provider has itself rightly stopped the act of repudiation of the claim of the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been observed no lapse on the part of the complainant. Reliance placed on Ashok Tamarakar & Associates Building Consultants Vs. Navin Kumar Gupta reported in II(2004) CPJ 232  and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kitab Singh reported in I (2005) CPJ 412.

9.           A perusal of Policy Schedule Annexure CI and Vety Health Certificate Annexure C-2 makes it clear that the animal in question was insured with the OP for Rs.45,000/-. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.45,000/-

10.          Keeping in view the above discussion, we find enough merit in the complaint and are of the considered opinion that the present complaint must succeed and the same is accordingly allowed.  The OP is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.45,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim of the complainant. Furthermore, OP will pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment as well as litigation costs to the complainant. The order shall be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith penal interest @18% p.a. instead @9% p.a., till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

11.          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.