By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.28,500/- with 12% interest being the insured value of cow and also directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased a cow for a sum of Rs.45,000/- and insured the cow for Rs.30,000/- with the Opposite Party for 3 years. The validity of insurance is during 21.06.2012 to 20.06.2015. The cow was thereafter affected with 'Akidveekkam' disease and the veterinary doctor treated the cow but it was not success. The milk yielding capacity of cow is totally stopped due to the disease. The doctor found no recovery to the milk yielding of cow. The complainant thereafter sold the cow for Rs.1,500/- only as meat value. The Complainant then with treatment records and certificate of veterinary doctor filed claim for getting insurance of the cow with Opposite party. But the Opposite party did not pay the insurance amount stating that the “Ear tag” of cow is not produced along with claim or thereafter. At the time of selling the cow, the Complainant forgot to take the Ear tag and it is a mistake on the part of Complainant. But in the treatment records and certificate of veterinary doctor, the Ear tag number is specially noted. The act of the Opposite Party is deficiency of service and aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to Opposite party and Opposite Party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of Opposite Party, Opposite party stated that the cow bearing ear tag No.260153 was insured with Opposite party as per Gosuraksha Insurance Master policy for the period starting from 21.06.2012 to 20.06.2015. The Opposite Party also admitted that the Complainant submitted claim form. In the policy, if ear tag is not surrendered at the time of claim, it will make the claim “Not payable”. The Complainant had not submitted the ear tag of animal and hence the claim is repudiated. If the claim of Complainant is admissible, the amount payable is only 75/- of the sum insured as per the policy conditions. There is no deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the claim application for getting insurance submitted by the Complainant. Ext.A2 is the certificate issued by veterinary doctor Dr. K.K. Satheesh kumar, Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary, Ambalavayal wherein the Ear tag number is shown as 260153. In the certificate, it is noted that there is total stoppage of milk production due to Akiduveekkam. The Ext.A2 also shows the treatment given to the cow. Ext.A4 is the photo copy of certificate issued by the veterinary doctor which is marked subject to proof. In Ext.A4 also, the ear tag number of cow is noted. Ext.B1 is the policy issued by the Opposite party to the Complainant. In the policy condition, it is stated that if the ear tag is not found on the ear when a claim occur and if not surrendered will make the claim not payable. On analysing the evidence and records, the Forum found that the only reason for the repudiation of claim is the non surrendering of ear tag with the claim submitted by the complainant. The Forum analysed that the submission of ear tag along with the claim is only for the purpose of identification of the cow by its ear tag number. The certificates ie Exts.A2 and A4 issued by the veterinary doctor which contains the ear tag of the cow need not be disbelieved. From the certificates of doctor, the identification of cow is possible. The Complainant was not aware of the importance of ear tag when a claim is submitted. Other wise the Complainant would have produced it. Such hyper-technicalities need not be applied in a case where the veterinary doctor clearly stated the ear tag number of the cow insured for the purpose of identification. The same doctor is the person who certified the animal at the time of giving insurance policy to the Complainant as per Ext.B1. Hence the Forum is of the opine that the repudiation of claim submitted by the Complainant is a deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.28,500/- (Rupees Twenty Eight thousand and Five hundred) only being the insured amount to the Complainant. The Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest from the whole sum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of September 2015.
Date of Filing:12.11.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Nisha. Complainant.
PW2. Dr. K.K. Sutheesh kumar. Veterinary Surgeon, Ambalavayal.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Sajeevan. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Sulthan Bathery Branch.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Application Form.
A2. Veterinary certificate.
A3. Letter. dt:27.03.2014.
A4. Copy of Certificate.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
B1. Cattle Insurance.
