BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint no.      73 of 2016           

                                                          Date of Institution:          10.3.2016

                                                          Date of Decision:     06.01.2017         

Leela @ Lilu Ram, aged about 47 years son of Shri Bahadur Singh, resident of village Rupana Jatan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager, having its office at Opp. Janta Bhawan, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.

                                                                              ……… Opposite parties.

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

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

                             SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.

Present:                Sh. Ashish Singla, Advocate for complainant.

                             Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party.          

ORDER

                          Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant was having one cow of breed HFX aged 3½ years of black colour with identification mark of tail up to hock joint. The complainant got insured his said cow with the opposite party vide insurance policy No.261503/47/2015/529 through Deputy Director Live stock insurance scheme valid from 23.1.2015 to 22.1.2016 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- and paid premium amount of Rs.1500/- plus taxes. A Health cum Evaluation certificate was also issued for the cow by the op and a tag bearing No. ITGI-26846 was inserted in the ear of the cow. It is further averred that cow was six months pregnant and on 4.8.2015, cow was taken to the veterinary hospital for check up as it was suffering from pyrexias. She was medically checked and treatment was provided by the doctor and was taken to veterinary hospital time and again for treatment. During this process of taking the cow to the hospital, the tag had broken and the base of tag was there in the ear but the upper portion i.e. the number print of the tag had separated from the same. The op was informed about the breakage of the tag and the officials of the op assured that their agent namely Bhagat Singh would visit the house of complainant and would insert a new tag. It is further averred that unfortunately because of the pyrexias the cow could not survive and on 7.8.2015 at about 4.00 a.m. the cow died. The information was immediately sent to the veterinary hospital and post mortem was conducted upon the dead body of cow on the same day and post mortem report was prepared. The op was also immediately informed about this mis-happening and a live stock claim form cum valuation certificate dated 10.8.2015 was also furnished with the op through the veterinary surgeon, Govt. Veterinary Hospital Nathusari Kalan, Sirsa describing the particulars of deceased cow and a live stock claim form bearing No.002638 was also furnished with op by complainant himself in this regard. The opposite party after receipt of information regarding claim appointed Sh. Madan Goyal, Advocate as surveyor/ investigator to investigate the matter and to give the report about the same. The investigator had visited the house of complainant and had collected all the required documents and he was also handed over the upper portion of the tag. The investigator had properly checked and identified the deceased cow and had compared the same with the details of the insurance and found that the died cow is the same which was insured with the op. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of op many a times but the officials of op kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and in the last week of February, 2016 they informed him that they have repudiated his claim for the reason of breakage of tag. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties replied that op has rendered the claim of the complainant as No Claim in a legal and lawful manner on the ground that No Tag No claim. The op-company on receipt of the information about the death of the cow from complainant had deputed Sh. Madan Goyal, Adv. for investigation who has reported that cow was not bearing Tag No. ITGI/26846 in its ear, only base of tag was present and number broken out. The Investigator in his report has no where stated that the upper portion of tag was handed over to him. If the tag affixed in the insured cow had broken down, then it is the duty of the complainant to immediately inform the op in this regard and to get affixed a fresh ear tag, but complainant has failed to do so and thus, he has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The claim of the complainant was repudiated as per clause mentioned in the policy/ broken of tag.   

3.                The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of health cum evaluation certificate Ex.C2, copy of policy Ex.C3, copy of post mortem report Ex.C4, copy of live stock claim form-cum- valuation certificate Ex.C5, copy of livestock claim form Ex.C6, copy of register of Veterinary Hospital Ex.C7, copy of application dated 4.8.2015 Ex.C8. On the other hand, opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.R1, details of insurances Ex.R2, copy of post mortem report Ex.R3, copy of repudiation letter Ex.R4, schedule of premium Ex.R5.

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

5.                There is no dispute that cow of the complainant of breed HFX aged 3½  years black in colour with identification mark of tail up to hock joint was insured with the opposite party from 23.1.2015 to 22.1.2016 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- and complainant paid premium of Rs.1500/- for the insurance to the opposite party. The above said facts are proved from copy of health cum evaluation certificate Ex.C2 and copy of policy Ex.C3. Admittedly, tag bearing No.ITGI-26846 was inserted in the ear of the insured cow of the complainant by the opposite party. According to the complainant, cow was six months pregnant and on 4.8.2015, the cow was taken to the veterinary hospital for check up as it was suffering from pyrexias. Then during the process of taking the cow to the veterinary hospitals for a number of times for treatment, the tag had broken and base of tag was in the ear but the number had separated from the tag. The opposite party was informed about the breakage of the tag which fact is proved from the copy of application dated 4.8.2015 (Ex.C8) moved by the complainant to the opposite party which was moved two/three days before the death of cow which took place on 7.8.2015 i.e. during the period of policy. Through this application, the complainant also requested the opposite party to insert new tag in the cow. In the post mortem report Ex.C4, it is mentioned that base of tag was present and number had broken out which proves the version of the complainant. So, the opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of No tag no claim.

6.                Keeping in view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the sum assured of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant for the death of his insured cow within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 10.3.2016 till actual payment. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the records.

Announced in open Forum.                                       President,

Dated:06.01.2017.                           Member.     District Consumer Disputes

                                                                              Redressal Forum, Sirsa.