Haryana

Jind

86/14

Geeta - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh A.K. Lather

09 Apr 2015

ORDER

                               

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                                              Complaint No. 86 of 2014

                                                    Date of institution:-4.8.2014

                                                    Date of decision:-9.4.2015

Geeta wife of Sh. Sushil Kumar, resident of village Sahanpur, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.  

                                                                           ..Complainant.

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch office Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                                                          …Opposite party.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:      Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

                Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

 

Present:-    Sh. A.K. Lather, Adv. for the complainant.

                Sh. Vikas  Sharma, Adv.for the opposite party. 

Order:-

                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant  had insured her cow  for a sum of Rs.40,000/-  vide policy No.420605/47/12/9400003148 w.e.f. 21.01.2013 to 20.01.2014 from the opposite party.  The complainant was allotted tag No. NIC’420605-7557 with the opposite party.  The above said  cow of the complainant fell ill on 01.01.2014 due to Theilerious. The complainant got her cow treated from Veterinary Surgeon HVS-1, Veterinary Hospital Sahanpur, Jind, but the cow of the complainant died on 06.01.2014.The Post mortem of the dead cow was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon HVH, Veterinary Hospital Sahanpur, Jind on

                                Geeta Vs. NIC

                                      …2…

06.01.2014 vide PMR 06.01.2014. The complainant lodged her claim  with  the opposite party and also submitted all the necessary documents with in time.  But the opposite party has declared the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’. The complainant visited the office of opposite party several times and requested to give the insured claim amount but the opposite party did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to pay the insured claim amount of Rs.40,000/-,  as well as to pay  a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2.     Pursuant to notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written reply stating in the preliminary objections i.e.  the complainant has got no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint;  the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. On merits, it is contended that after receiving the death intimation of the cow of complainant the matter of  claim was got invested by the opposite party through an independent and Govt. approved Surveyor Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jain who conducted the spot  survey on the same day of death of cow i.e. 06.01.2014 and submitted his report on 25.1.2014  and  found that  features of died cow were not matching with the insured cow as described in Health Certificate. The died cow was having black colour tail tuft , whereas as per Health Certificate  the colour of  tail tuft of insured cow was white. The condition of the ear tag was very fresh and new and there is also difference in the number of lactation of the insured and died cow, the claim of the complainant  was declined as

 

                                Geeta Vs. NIC

                                      …3…

 ‘No Claim’ by the opposite party vide letter dated 14.03.2014.  All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with  special cost of Rs.10,000/- is prayed for.  

3.     In evidence, the complainant has produced her own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of claim form Ex. C-2, copy of valuation certificate Ex. C-3, copy of post-mortem report Ex. C-4 and copy of policy schedule Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of  Sh. M. L. Verma Ex. OP-1, copy of survey report Ex. OP-2, copy of health cum evaluation certificate Ex. OP-3, copies of letters Ex. OP-4 and OP-5, copy of post-mortem report Ex. OP-6 and copy  of document Ex. OP-7 and closed the evidence.

4.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. It is a fact that the complainant had insured her cow from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.40,000/- w.e.f. 21.01.2013 to 20.01.2014 Ex C-5, and after insurance, the cow of the complainant was allotted Tag No. NIC/420605-7557. The above said  cow of the complainant fell ill on 01.01.2014 due to Theilerious. The complainant got her cow treated from Veterinary Surgeon HVS-1, Veterinary Hospital Sahanpur (Jind), but the cow of the complainant died on 06.01.2014.The Post mortem of the dead cow was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Hospital Sahanpur (Jind) on 06.01.2014 vide PMR dated 06.01.2014 Ex C-4. The complainant lodged her claim  with  the opposite party and also submitted all the necessary documents with in time. But On dated 09.07.2014 the opposite party has declared claim of the complainant as ‘no claim’ Ex. OP-5.

 

                                Geeta Vs. NIC

                                      …4…

5.     On the other hand the opposite party has averred  that after receiving the death intimation of the cow of complainant the matter of  claim was got invested by the opposite party through an independent and Govt. approved Surveyor Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jain who conducted the spot  survey on the same day of death of cow i.e. 06.01.2014 and submitted his report on 25.1.2014. He  found that  features of died cow were not matching with the insured cow as described in Health Certificate. The died cow was having black colour tail tuft , whereas as per Health Certificate  the colour of  tail tuft of insured cow was white. The condition of the ear tag was very fresh and new and there is also difference in the number of lactation of the insured and died cow. The claim of the complainant  was declined by the opposite party vide letter dated 14.03.2014

6.     The complainant  has also produced  treatment chart of her cow bearing NIC 420605/7557 issued by Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Veterinary Hospital Sahanpur (Jind). The surveyor before giving   his findings in his survey report Ex OP-2 has not tried to meet the Government Veterinary doctor who treated the cow and conducted the   post mortem report on her dead body. Hence, we find that the surveyor report is not supported  by the statement of doctor on which we are unable to place reliance. Under these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention  of the opposite party and find no reason to  disbelieve the version of the complainant. It is clear that the dead cow was the same which was insured with the opposite party and ear tag  was  the same which was fixed in the ear of the cow at the time of insurance.

7.     In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the opposite party has wrongly repudiated the

 

                                Geeta Vs. NIC

                                      …5…

rightful claim of the complainant. Deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite party. Consequently, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the opposite party is  directed to pay the insurance amount of the cow i.e.  Rs.40,000/- to the complainant within one month after receiving the  certified copy to this order. In case of failure, the opposite party will  pay a simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 04.08.2014 till its full realization of amount. The opposite party will also  pay Rs.2100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Parties will bear their own costs.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

  Announced on: 09.04.2015

                                                                President,

 Member                              District Consumer Disputes                                                                  Redressal Forum, Jind