DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 16^th day of April 2013.

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 22/08/2012

(CC/162/2012)

Baby Mathew,

S/o. Mathai - Complainant

Kochuparambil house,

Agali, Mannarkkad Taluk,

Palakkad ( Rep by Lizamma

W/o. Baby Mathew)

(By Adv.Dhananjayan)

V/s

1. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opposite parties

Regd & Head office at 24, Whites Road,

Chennai - 14

( Rep.by Authorised signatory/Manager)

2. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Divisional Manager,

Divisional office, P.B.No. 92, 11/82,

3^rd floor, Malabar Fort off, G.B. Road

Palakkad – 678 001

3. Dr. V.R. Rajesh,

Veterinary Surgeon,

Veterinary Hospital, Agali.

(By Adv.T.S. Rajesh Kumar)

4. The Govt. of Kerala ,

Rep. by the District Collector, Palakkad,

Civil Station, Palakkad.

(By Govt.Pleader)

O R D E R

By SMT. PREETHA.G. NAIR, MEMBER

Complainant is a small farmer and agricultural labourer and earn livelihood from agricultural work. The complainant had taken a cattle insurance policy under the Gosuraksha Scheme for his 2 cows having 6 years and 3 years age from opposite party no.2 and they have issued a certificate of insurance. The complainant has remitted the 2^nd opposite party Rs. 1000/- as the insurance premium for one year and the total insured amount was for Rs. 30,000/- respectively. The effective coverage of the policy was for one year commencing from 17.10.2011 to16/10/2012. Out of the two cows insured the cow no.2 was died due to sudden disease on 26/11/2011. A postmortem was conducted also by Dr. Ramaswamy, veterinary surgeon. At the time of availing the insurance policy the cow was having 8 months of pregnancy. While the cow was grazing in the field, there occurred a small wound in her leg and that become septic and become complicated and has not been healed. The complainant had given all the best medical treatments to save her life. But the cow was died on 26/11/2011. The complainant was treating and nourishing the cow with all care and affection. At the time of death the cow was pregnant for 4 months after the 2^nd delivery. It was her 2^nd delivery and was having 15 to 20 ltrs. of milking per day.

Being insured the complainant has informed the veterinary hospital regarding the incident and the death of cow. The concerned doctor ie. Opposite party no.3 was not available on the day, the postmortem was conducted by Dr. Ramaswamy. As the cow was died, the complainant legally entitled to get the insurance amount of Rs. 30,000/- in the capacity of its effective coverage. After the death of the cow the complainant has contacted all the opposite parties and informed the true facts. Though the complainant has asked the opposite parties to give the insurance policy, they did not give it by stating that the policy is a group insurance policy and the original policy cannot be given, but has given only the Xerox copy. The complainant has submitted all the necessary papers to opposite party no.1 and 2 along with the ear tag of the cow, which was removed and taken from the corpse of the cow before her burial.

Even after the long interval the opposite party no.1 and 2 did not disburse and satisfy the insurance claim amount to the complainant. At last the complainant requested the officers of the opposite party no.1 and 2 to reveal the actual reason for the non disbursement of the insurance claim amount . Then they have told that it is due to the mistake in the ear tag number which differs from the insurance policy number that they could not give the insurance policy claim amount. The ear tag number of the cow is 305700, but in the insurance policy the veterinary surgeon has written it as 305788. Then the surgeon ie. opposite party no.3 told the complainant that he will give a clarification letter to the insurance company also and there will not be any further difficulties in getting the insurance claim amount further. The complainant has known about the error and mistake only when it has been told to the complainant after the death of the cow and also very recently. Apart from the claim amount the complainant has to spend huge amounts for the treatment of the cow and later for its cremation. Now opposite parties no.1,2 and 3 have washed their hands without even showing the courtesy to help the poor complainant. The act of all opposite parties are indeed a graving example of deficiency on service and unfair trade practice. When the cow which was his sole source of livelihood has lost, it has not only resulted in lowing his daily income but also he could not repay the loan amount taken from the bank. As far as the non disbursement of insurance claim is concerned opposite party no.1 and 2 are directly responsible for that and the complainant seeks the relief on that account from opposite party no.1 and 2 . As 3^rd opposite party is also directly involved for the deficiency of service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1 lakh as the claim amount, compensation and damages and also pay the cost of the proceedings.

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. Opposite party no.1 and 2 stated that there is no insurance coverage issued in respect of the cows alleged to have been owned by the complainant in the petition. The complainant’s two cows insured were with tag Nos.420009/305516 and 420009/305788. These were insured as per policy no. 101200/47/11/01/00001576 in favour of Dr. V.R. Rajesh. In the policy it is specifically mentioned that if there is no tag no claim. The policy is issued in the name of the Doctor and the beneficiaries are selected by the Doctor and he used to fill the details of the cow, insured name and the tag number. In the present case it is insured by the Doctor and has mentioned the tag number as 420009/305788. The insurance premium is paid by the insured, Panchayath and the Govt. of Kerala and it is remitted by the Doctor who is the implementing officer. The contention of the complainant that he had remitted insurance premium is not correct. Since there is no insurance coverage for the alleged cow the company has no liability to indemnify the insured in the present case.

The present tag mentioned is issued by the Govt. of Kerala and the number is written by the doctor in his own handwriting. The present case the photo taken at the time of postmortem it is clear that the cow with tag number 305700 is the one died due to the alleged disease and it is true that the applicant has submitted the relevant documents along with the tag to the company. On verification it was clear that there was no insurance cover issued by the opposite party no.1 and 2 to the alleged cow. The cow was used to identify with the tag and it is clear from the policy that no tag no insurance claim. The policy was issued for the period from 17/10/2011 to 16/10/2012 and the cow was died on 6/12/2011 and the claim form with other records were submitted on 5/01/2012 and it was immediately informed about the repudiation of the claim, since there was no insurable interest. On 24/01/2012 the doctor has sent a letter stating that there was a clerical mistake and correct tag was 305700 which was rejected by the company as per their letter dated 01/02/2012. The contention of there was long delay in making reply is absolutely false and it is evident from his own statement. After the death of cow the doctor has issued a request letter stating that there was mistake in the tag number which was rejected by the company by its reply, on the basis of the records available with the company. The action of the opposite parties is legal just and valid. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice.

Opposite party no.3 stated that the contention of the complainant that he had taken a cattle insurance policy with opposite party no.1 and 2 under Gosuraksha Scheme for his two cows are correct. The opposite party no.1 and 2 had issued an insurance policy no. 101200/47/11/01/00001576 in favour of opposite party no.3. Two cows of the complainant were insured as per the policy and the copy of the policy was handed over to the complainant. Hence it is not correct to state that the complainant came to know about the tag numbers only recently after the death of the cow. The tag numbers of both cows were insured with opposite party no.1 and 2 are 305516 and 305700 Among these the cow having tag number 307500 died and the postmortem conducted by another doctor also shows that the deceased cow’s tag number was 305700. All other descriptions regarding the deceased cow and the insured cow tally with each other.

The complainant had not taken any steps to correct the tag number mentioned in the insurance policy even after receiving the copy of the policy. There is no negligence on the part of opposite party no.3. The complainant was not shown due care and vigilance while handling the insurance coverage.

Opposite party no.4 stated that the contention of the complainant that he had taken a cattle insurance policy with 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties under Gosuracksha scheme for his two cows are correct. The tag numbers of both cow are 305516 and 305788. Among these one of the cows died and the postmortem conducted by another doctor shows that the deceased cow’s tag number was not 305788 and the deceased cow is not insured and opposite party no.3 and 4 are not liable to pay compensation.

Hence all opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Complainant and opposite party no.1,2 and 3 field chief affidavit. Ext. A1 to A2 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext. B1 to B8 marked on the side of opposite parties. Opposite party no.2 and 3 was examined as DW1 and DW2. Matter heard. Both parties filed argument notes.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?

Issues 1 & 2

We perused relevant documents on record. According to opposite party no.1 and 2 the policy is issued in the name of the Doctor and the beneficiaries are selected by the doctor and he used to fill the details of cow, insured name and the tag number. In the present case it is insured by the doctor and has mentioned the tag number 305788. In version filed by opposite party no.3 the doctor stated that two cows of the complainant were insured as per the policy and the copy of the policy was handed over to the complainant. Further opposite party no.3 stated in the version that the tag nos. of both cows are 305516 and 305700 and both cows were insured with opposite party no.1 and 2. Among these the cow having tag number 305700 died and the postmortem conducted by another doctor shows that the deceased cow’s tag number was 305700+. In the affidavit 3^rd opposite party stated that the tag numbers of both cows are 305516 and 305700.

In Ext. B8 policy conditions the clause 8. Additional policy conditions : No tag – No claim : - In the event of death claims shall not be entertained unless the ear tags are surrendered to the company. So in the present case the deceased cow has a tag number 305700 produced and marked as Ext. B6 along with the photos of deceased cow. It also shown the tag number of the deceased cow was 305700. As per Ext. B1 there was valid insurance coverage from 17/10/2011 to 16/10/2012. As per the Gosuraksha Scheme two cows of the complainant was insured with tag no. 305516 and 305788. Also opposite party no.3 stated that all other descriptions regarding the deceased cow and insured cow tally with each other.

In Ext. B4 opposite party no.3 given letter to opposite party no.2 stating that there is a change in tag no. in the policy is written by clerical mistake as 420009/305788 instead of 420009/305700. This may considered as clerical mistake and the correction may be done in the policy certificate. “ At the time of cross examination of opposite party no.3 deposed that Complainant sâ c­p ]ip¡sfbpw insure sNbvXXv Rm\mWv. c­v ]ip¡Ä¡pw Insure sN¿p¶ kab¯v Ear tag D­mbncp¶p.

As per the evidence the complainant had two cows insured by opposite party no.1 and 2 with tag nos. 305516 and 305788. The tag number produced for the corpse of the cow belonging to the complainant shown that the cow having tag no. 305700 died. In Ext. B4 the opposite party no. 3 clearly stated that there is a change in tag no. in the policy written as 305788 instead of 305700.

Moreover the answers filed by the opposite party no. 2 stating that the claim was repudiated by the company since there are no records to show that the cow being tag no. 305700 was insured with the company. Further opposite party no.2 stated that the company has issued policy no. 101200/47/11/01/0001576 in favour of Dr. V.R. Rajesh in respect of the cow having tag no. 420009/305788 and no claim is made in respect of the cow so far. The complainant has not produced evidence to show the bank loan not paid by him.

The opposite party no.1 and 2 has not produced evidence to show that the complainant had more than two cows. In fact the cow with tag no. 305700 was died and the complainant claimed insurance amount of his cow. According to opposite party no.1 and 2 the insurance certificate is issued in the name of the doctor. The opposite party no.3 has not produced evidence to show that he has verified the tag number after receiving the policy. The counsel of complainant argued that postmortem of deceased cow having tag number 305700 was conducted in the premises of complainant. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties. In the present case the deceased cow had a tag number as 305700 belonging to the complainant and that was with the cow all the time and the tag bears the number was taken from the corpse of the cow. The complainant has not claimed relief from 4^th opposite party. So 4^th opposite party is exonerated from any liability.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint allowed. We direct the opposite party no.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 30,000/- ( Rupees Thirty thousand only) as the insurance amount. Also opposite parties no.1,2 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 7,000/- ( Rupees Seven thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and pay Rs. 1000/- ( Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9percentage interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 16^th day of April 2013.

Sd/-

Seena H

President

Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of the Cattle Insurance Policy.

Ext.A2 – Copy of Gosuraksha Schedule, United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Copy of the Insurance Policy, No. 101200/47/11/01/00001576.

Ext.B2– Description of the animal with postmortem report issued by Dr. Ramaswamy dated 05/01/2012.

Ext. B3 – Cattle claim form submitted by the complainant.

Ext. B4 – Letter dated 24/01/2012 written by the third opposite party to the first opposite party.

Ext. B5 – Reply letter issued by the 1^st opposite party to 3^rd opposite party dtd. 01/02/2012.

Ext. B6 – Tag removed from the cattle and forwarded with the postmortem report.

Ext. B7 series - Photos taken at the time of postmortem.

Ext. B8 – True copy of Gosuraksha scheme.

Complainant cross examined

Nil

Opposite parties cross examined

DW1 – N. Balagopalan

DW2 – Dr. V.R. Rajesh

Cost Allowed

Rs. 1000/- ( Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.