BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 153 of 2016                                                                          

                                                            Date of Institution         :    15.6.2016

                                                          Date of decision   :    11.4.2017

Chinto Wd/o Sh. Meela Singh, resident of village Farwai Khurd, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                           

                                                                       ...…Opposite party

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT

                     SMT. RAJNI GOYAT …………….……MEMBER.  

Present:       Sh. V.P. Arora,  Advocate for the complainant.

      Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                   In brief, complainant case is that he was owner of one cow colour black, aged 7 years, HFX breed without horns. The complainant got insured his cow from the opposite party on 7.3.2015 vide insurance policy No.261503/47/2015/922 valid w.e.f. 7.3.2015 to 6.3.2016. At the time of insurance, the tag No.OIC-132680 was provided for the cow for its identity and a health cum evaluation certificate was issued by Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Farwai Khurd. The said cow died due to acute tympani and rupture of diaphragm on 27.11.2015. The complainant immediately after the death of cow sent intimation to op regarding death of insured cow. Thereafter, Investigator of company Mr. Rajesh Mehta, Advocate visited the spot and verified the death of cow and also got conducted post mortem of cow from the doctor of Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Farwai Khurd. The complainant supplied all the documents to the Investigator and company for disbursement of claim but on 17.3.2016 a letter has been issued by the Branch Manager of the op company whereby the op repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of No tag No claim clause as mentioned in the policy. It is further averred that at the time of death, the cow was hale and hearty and was giving approximately 8 Kg. milk daily and the value of cow was approximately Rs.30,000/- but the same was got insured for a sum of Rs.20,000/- only. That prior to the death of cow, the identity tag which was put thereon the body of live stock may have broken down which was not within the knowledge of complainant and at the time of death, there was identity hole in the ear of cow. The Investigator of company himself verified the death of insured cow in the presence of Lal Singh and Balveer Kumar and recorded their statement alongwith complainant and assured for payment of compensation. The complainant was having only one cow and she has no other cow, thus question of wrong/mis-identity could not arise, hence letter of repudiation dated 17.3.2016 is wrong and incorrect. It is further averred that after receipt of above mentioned letter, the complainant contacted the op with the request to re-consider her claim but of no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party appeared and replied that op has rendered the claim of complainant as No claim in a legal and lawful manner on the ground that No Tag No claim. The ear tag is the basic proof of identification of animal after insurance. There is a settled condition of the policy that ‘No Tag No claim’. If tag is not present in the ear of the dead animal at the time of death, claim is not admissible. No tag was present in the ear of dead animal at the time of inspection of carcass by the Investigator and even the complainant could not produce or show the ear tag to the Investigator. It is further submitted that in case the ear tag affixed on the insured cow had broken down, then the complainant should have informed this fact to the company at the relevant time and should have got affixed a fresh tag but she failed to do so. Thus, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the claim of complainant has been repudiated by the op as per policy condition.

3.                 The complainant has produced her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7. On the other hand, op produced affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R5.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                From a perusal of copy of policy schedule Ex.C4, it is evident that cow of black colour of the age of 7 years, HFX breed belonging to the complainant Smt. Chinto was insured for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with the opposite party w.e.f. 7.3.2015 to 6.3.2016. At the time of insurance of the said cow of complainant, the opposite party also got health cum evaluation certificate from Veterinary Surgeon of Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Farwai Khurd, the copy of which is placed on file as Ex.C5 in which all the particulars of the said cow are mentioned. The said cow of the complainant died on 27.11.2015 and post mortem examination on the dead body of cow was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon and copy of post mortem report is placed on file as Ex.C3. The opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no tag in the ear of the cow when their investigator visited the spot after the death of cow and so the claim has been repudiated on the basis of No tag No claim clause as mentioned in the policy. The repudiation letter in this regard is placed on file as Ex.C2 and Ex.R2. However, we are of the considered view that opposite party has wrongly and illegally repudiated the genuine claim of complainant. The Veterinary Surgeon at the time of post mortem examination of cow has mentioned in the post mortem report  the description of the animal with breed i.e. HFX colour black, sex female and age as approximately 7 years 9 months with old hole in right ear and the said description duly matches with the description of the cow given in the health cum evaluation certificate Ex.C5. Moreover, the opposite party has not placed on file terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question. So, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party is not justified.

6.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- i.e. sum assured of the cow to the complainant within a period of 45 days from receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant would be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.    File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated:11.4.2017.                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                        Member.