DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of February 2014
Present: Smt.Seena.H. President
Smt.Shini.P.R. Member
Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing : 08/02/2013
CC No.31/2013
Selvakumari,
W/o.Chandran,
Poonthurapadam,
Vattekkad, Elavanchery,
Palakkad.
(By Adv.A.Natesan Anant &
B.Kamal Chand) - Complainant
Vs
M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd.
IG Towers, 2nd Floor, Near Bus Stand,
Nenmara, Palakkad – 678 508
Rep.by its Branch Manager - Opposite party
(By Adv.K.Lakshminarayanan)
O R D E R
Order by Smt.SUMA.K.P. MEMBER.
The complainant availed a loan from Elavanchery Service Co-operative bank for purchasing a cow under Kudumbasree Ayalkootam Group loan scheme. In this case cattle loan is granted to all the members of the group simultaneously and everyone had purchased cows. Each of the animals were insured for Rs.15,000/- with the opposite party Insurance company. The opposite party company had issued ear tags to all the animals simultaneously and the same was handed over to Govt. Veterinary Surgeon of the area for tagging the animals. The tag No.of complainant’s animal was 3881/2343. Insurance Policy No. is 101204/47/10/01/00001068. Policy coverage was from 17/12/2010 to 16/12/2013.
Unfortunately on 9/3/2012 the complainant’s cow died. The bank officials, Veterinary surgeon and opposite party insurance company were informed. The veterinary surgeon conducted postmortem of the cow in the presence of bank officials and others and later on submitted a report. The Veterinary Surgeon had handed over the tag to the opposite party. But when the claim was forwarded on 25/3/2012 opposite party insurance company repudiated the claim for the reason that the tag No. quoted in the policy is different from the No. of the tag produced. That is the tag No. in the policy was 3881/2992. On enquiry it was revealed that at the time of tagging all the animals of the group members simultaneously, somehow the particular tag No. which was tagged on the animal of the complainant was mistakenly entered into the policy of another group member and viseversa. Veterinary Surgeon and bank officials had requested the opposite party to honour the claim but they refused. Consequently a lawyer notice was sent to the opposite party on 7/8/2012 but the same was received and a reply notice was issued to the complainant stating that policy claim cannot be honoured. Since the complainant was living out of the income from the cow she became bankrupt and had to suffer for her daily needs. Moreover the animal was purchased through a bank loan and due to the above circumstances she is not in a position to make repayments regularly and the bank is imposing penal interest in the loan account. The complainant alleges that the conduct and activity of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The authorities who was supposed to do the things in a fair and good manner have acted in an unfair manner and had caused the complainant the loss of income for several months and have pushed the complainant to suffer severe mental agony and stress. Hence this complaint was filed.
Notice issued to opposite party and they filed version denying the allegation in the complaint.
It was admitted by the opposite party that the company had insured a cow belonging to the complainant through Elvancherry Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vide policy No. 101204/47/10/01/00001068. The said policy is not a group policy, but an individual policy issued in the name of Selvakumari. The contention that complainant is a member of Kudumbasree Ayalkoottam and a group loan was sanctioned in their favour by Elavanchery Service Co-operative Bank are not known to the opposite party. The tags were issued to the Veterinary Surgeon and he is the person who will tag the cow and the numbers will be issued. The tag issued in respect of complainant’s cow as per the above said policy is 3881/2343. It is admitted that company has received a claim form with postmortem report in respect of cow bearing tag No.3881/2992. On verification it was seen that the cows tag No.and policy are not tallying. The claim was repudiated by the company. As per the condition in policy, “NO TAG NO CLAIM”. The contract between the insurer and insured is the policy and any violation of the policy condition the policy will become invalid. In the present case policy is issued in respect of the cow bearing tag No.3881/2343 and since the policy No.and tag No. differs the company has rightly repudiated the claim. There is no deficiency of service. The policy is not a group policy as alleged in the petition. The opposite party has not caused any mental or financial loss to the complainant. Every action taken by the company is as per the terms and conditions in the policy. Since the cow has no insurance policy in the name of complainant as per the papers submitted by the complainant the claim was rightly repudiated by the company. Hence the opposite party company is not liable to pay any amount claimed by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. Complaint has to be dismissed with cost.
Complainant and opposite party filed their chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 & B2 were marked on the side of opposite party. Complainant filed interrogatories and answers were filed by opposite parties.
Now the issues arise for consideration is
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?
It is obvious from Ext.A1 that the tag No. of the deceased animal was 3881/2343. Insurance Policy No. was 101204/47/10/01/00001068. The copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ext.A1 and coverage duration from 17/12/2010 to 16/12/2013. It is admitted that animal of the complainant died on 9/3/2012. Veterinary Surgeon had conducted postmortem report and the claim form was forwarded to 25/3/2012 and opposite party refused for the reason that the tag No. quoted in the policy is different from the tag No. produced by the complainant. According to the opposite party the tag No. in the policy is 3881/2992 which is evident from Ext.B1. Tag issued in respect of complainant’s policy No. 101204/47/10/01/00001068 is 3881/2992. The opposite party had received claim form with postmortem report in respect of the cow bearing tag No.3881/2343. According to the opposite party it is seen that the cow’s tag No. and policy are not tallying. The complainant submits that at the time of tagging all the animals of the group members of Kudumbasree Ayalkoottam, somehow the particular tag No. which is tagged on the animal of the complainant was mistakenly entered into the policy of another group member and vice versa. The veterinary surgeon and the bank had issued letters to the effect that this is only an inadvertent mistake but this is the same animal of the complainant. The letters dated 13/3/2012 and 16/3/2012 issued by Veterinary surgeon was marked as Ext.A2 series. The letter dated 26/4/2012 issued by Secretary, Elevancherry Service Co-operative bank was marked as Ext.A3. On perusal of Ext.A2 series the Veterinary doctor had stated that the difference noticed the last four digits of the ear tag No. might be due to the error occurred while translating the ear tag No. in the proposal form/policy, since the animals belonging to one group (10 nos.) have been tagged in the common place. From Ext.A3 will also support the above contention that the Secretary, Elavancherry Service Co-operative Bank had also stated that the differences in the ear tag no. of the animal with the policy is due to error occurred while translating the ear tag No. of the animal to the proposal form by the Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary dispensary, Elavancherry. He had also stated that the deceased animal bearing ear tag No.3881/2343 in this case is the actual animal insured under the Policy by Smt.Selvakumari. But the opposite party had repudiated the claim for the reason that an ear tag used differs as shown in the policy. The opposite party had received letters from the financier, as well as from the complainant stating that the said ear tag was used for another animal instead of using the animal covered in the said policy bearing No. 101204/47/10/01/00001068. In the above context we are of the view that the tag No. entered in the policy is inter changed with tag No. of another policy in the same group since the animal belonging to one group was tagged from a common place as brought out from Ext.A2 series. This might have happened due to an oversight while tagging the animals. The tags were inter changed with some other animal. From the above discussions, it is viewed that the mistake had occurred due to the negligent act from the part of the Veterinary Surgeon due to oversight. The consumer cannot be put hardship for the negligent act of the Veterinary doctor. Moreover the main purpose of insuring animal is to protect the poor borrowers from financial consequences due to the death of the animal. Otherwise the person buying the animal and rearing it will be rendered bankrupt if the animal dies. Considering the above aspects we are of the view that the claim of the complainant is of the genuine nature. The stand of the insurance company that the claim cannot be honoured on technical aspect is not justifiable in this context.
Hence we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) which is the insured amount to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest per annum for the said amount from the date of order till realization. Considering the facts of the case, there is no order as to the cost of this complaint. Complaint allowed in part as above.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of February 2014.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Shyni.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Insurance Policy dated 17/12/2010
Ext.A2 series – Letters dated 13/3/12 & 16/3/12 sent by Veterinary Surgeon to
opposite party.
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of letter sent by Secretary, Elevancherry Service Co-
Operative Bank Ltd. to the opposite party dated 26/4/2012.
Ext.A4 – Copy of lawyer notice dated 7/8/12 to opposite party
Ext.A5 – Reply to lawyer notice dated 17/8/12.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext.B1 – True copy of the Insurance Policy No. 101204/47/10/01/00001068
issued by the opposite party
Ext.B2 –True copy of the cattle insurance proposal form
Cost
No order as to cost.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of February 2014
Present: Smt.Seena.H. President
Smt.Shini.P.R. Member
Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing : 08/02/2013
CC No.31/2013
Selvakumari,
W/o.Chandran,
Poonthurapadam,
Vattekkad, Elavanchery,
Palakkad.
(By Adv.A.Natesan Anant &
B.Kamal Chand) - Complainant
Vs
M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd.
IG Towers, 2nd Floor, Near Bus Stand,
Nenmara, Palakkad – 678 508
Rep.by its Branch Manager - Opposite party
(By Adv.K.Lakshminarayanan)
O R D E R
Order by Smt.SUMA.K.P. MEMBER.
The complainant availed a loan from Elavanchery Service Co-operative bank for purchasing a cow under Kudumbasree Ayalkootam Group loan scheme. In this case cattle loan is granted to all the members of the group simultaneously and everyone had purchased cows. Each of the animals were insured for Rs.15,000/- with the opposite party Insurance company. The opposite party company had issued ear tags to all the animals simultaneously and the same was handed over to Govt. Veterinary Surgeon of the area for tagging the animals. The tag No.of complainant’s animal was 3881/2343. Insurance Policy No. is 101204/47/10/01/00001068. Policy coverage was from 17/12/2010 to 16/12/2013.
Unfortunately on 9/3/2012 the complainant’s cow died. The bank officials, Veterinary surgeon and opposite party insurance company were informed. The veterinary surgeon conducted postmortem of the cow in the presence of bank officials and others and later on submitted a report. The Veterinary Surgeon had handed over the tag to the opposite party. But when the claim was forwarded on 25/3/2012 opposite party insurance company repudiated the claim for the reason that the tag No. quoted in the policy is different from the No. of the tag produced. That is the tag No. in the policy was 3881/2992. On enquiry it was revealed that at the time of tagging all the animals of the group members simultaneously, somehow the particular tag No. which was tagged on the animal of the complainant was mistakenly entered into the policy of another group member and viseversa. Veterinary Surgeon and bank officials had requested the opposite party to honour the claim but they refused. Consequently a lawyer notice was sent to the opposite party on 7/8/2012 but the same was received and a reply notice was issued to the complainant stating that policy claim cannot be honoured. Since the complainant was living out of the income from the cow she became bankrupt and had to suffer for her daily needs. Moreover the animal was purchased through a bank loan and due to the above circumstances she is not in a position to make repayments regularly and the bank is imposing penal interest in the loan account. The complainant alleges that the conduct and activity of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The authorities who was supposed to do the things in a fair and good manner have acted in an unfair manner and had caused the complainant the loss of income for several months and have pushed the complainant to suffer severe mental agony and stress. Hence this complaint was filed.
Notice issued to opposite party and they filed version denying the allegation in the complaint.
It was admitted by the opposite party that the company had insured a cow belonging to the complainant through Elvancherry Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vide policy No. 101204/47/10/01/00001068. The said policy is not a group policy, but an individual policy issued in the name of Selvakumari. The contention that complainant is a member of Kudumbasree Ayalkoottam and a group loan was sanctioned in their favour by Elavanchery Service Co-operative Bank are not known to the opposite party. The tags were issued to the Veterinary Surgeon and he is the person who will tag the cow and the numbers will be issued. The tag issued in respect of complainant’s cow as per the above said policy is 3881/2343. It is admitted that company has received a claim form with postmortem report in respect of cow bearing tag No.3881/2992. On verification it was seen that the cows tag No.and policy are not tallying. The claim was repudiated by the company. As per the condition in policy, “NO TAG NO CLAIM”. The contract between the insurer and insured is the policy and any violation of the policy condition the policy will become invalid. In the present case policy is issued in respect of the cow bearing tag No.3881/2343 and since the policy No.and tag No. differs the company has rightly repudiated the claim. There is no deficiency of service. The policy is not a group policy as alleged in the petition. The opposite party has not caused any mental or financial loss to the complainant. Every action taken by the company is as per the terms and conditions in the policy. Since the cow has no insurance policy in the name of complainant as per the papers submitted by the complainant the claim was rightly repudiated by the company. Hence the opposite party company is not liable to pay any amount claimed by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. Complaint has to be dismissed with cost.
Complainant and opposite party filed their chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 & B2 were marked on the side of opposite party. Complainant filed interrogatories and answers were filed by opposite parties.
Now the issues arise for consideration is
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?
It is obvious from Ext.A1 that the tag No. of the deceased animal was 3881/2343. Insurance Policy No. was 101204/47/10/01/00001068. The copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ext.A1 and coverage duration from 17/12/2010 to 16/12/2013. It is admitted that animal of the complainant died on 9/3/2012. Veterinary Surgeon had conducted postmortem report and the claim form was forwarded to 25/3/2012 and opposite party refused for the reason that the tag No. quoted in the policy is different from the tag No. produced by the complainant. According to the opposite party the tag No. in the policy is 3881/2992 which is evident from Ext.B1. Tag issued in respect of complainant’s policy No. 101204/47/10/01/00001068 is 3881/2992. The opposite party had received claim form with postmortem report in respect of the cow bearing tag No.3881/2343. According to the opposite party it is seen that the cow’s tag No. and policy are not tallying. The complainant submits that at the time of tagging all the animals of the group members of Kudumbasree Ayalkoottam, somehow the particular tag No. which is tagged on the animal of the complainant was mistakenly entered into the policy of another group member and vice versa. The veterinary surgeon and the bank had issued letters to the effect that this is only an inadvertent mistake but this is the same animal of the complainant. The letters dated 13/3/2012 and 16/3/2012 issued by Veterinary surgeon was marked as Ext.A2 series. The letter dated 26/4/2012 issued by Secretary, Elevancherry Service Co-operative bank was marked as Ext.A3. On perusal of Ext.A2 series the Veterinary doctor had stated that the difference noticed the last four digits of the ear tag No. might be due to the error occurred while translating the ear tag No. in the proposal form/policy, since the animals belonging to one group (10 nos.) have been tagged in the common place. From Ext.A3 will also support the above contention that the Secretary, Elavancherry Service Co-operative Bank had also stated that the differences in the ear tag no. of the animal with the policy is due to error occurred while translating the ear tag No. of the animal to the proposal form by the Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary dispensary, Elavancherry. He had also stated that the deceased animal bearing ear tag No.3881/2343 in this case is the actual animal insured under the Policy by Smt.Selvakumari. But the opposite party had repudiated the claim for the reason that an ear tag used differs as shown in the policy. The opposite party had received letters from the financier, as well as from the complainant stating that the said ear tag was used for another animal instead of using the animal covered in the said policy bearing No. 101204/47/10/01/00001068. In the above context we are of the view that the tag No. entered in the policy is inter changed with tag No. of another policy in the same group since the animal belonging to one group was tagged from a common place as brought out from Ext.A2 series. This might have happened due to an oversight while tagging the animals. The tags were inter changed with some other animal. From the above discussions, it is viewed that the mistake had occurred due to the negligent act from the part of the Veterinary Surgeon due to oversight. The consumer cannot be put hardship for the negligent act of the Veterinary doctor. Moreover the main purpose of insuring animal is to protect the poor borrowers from financial consequences due to the death of the animal. Otherwise the person buying the animal and rearing it will be rendered bankrupt if the animal dies. Considering the above aspects we are of the view that the claim of the complainant is of the genuine nature. The stand of the insurance company that the claim cannot be honoured on technical aspect is not justifiable in this context.
Hence we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) which is the insured amount to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest per annum for the said amount from the date of order till realization. Considering the facts of the case, there is no order as to the cost of this complaint. Complaint allowed in part as above.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of February 2014.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Shyni.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Insurance Policy dated 17/12/2010
Ext.A2 series – Letters dated 13/3/12 & 16/3/12 sent by Veterinary Surgeon to
opposite party.
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of letter sent by Secretary, Elevancherry Service Co-
Operative Bank Ltd. to the opposite party dated 26/4/2012.
Ext.A4 – Copy of lawyer notice dated 7/8/12 to opposite party
Ext.A5 – Reply to lawyer notice dated 17/8/12.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext.B1 – True copy of the Insurance Policy No. 101204/47/10/01/00001068
issued by the opposite party
Ext.B2 –True copy of the cattle insurance proposal form
Cost
No order as to cost.
