BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 34 of 2016
Date of Institution : 2.2.2016
Date of decision : 25.1.2017
Raj Kumar son of Sh. Hira Lal, resident of Ward No.15, Mohalla Chatik, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Janta Bhawan, Sirsa through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Oriental House, Post Box No.7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- 110002 through its Managing Director/ General Manager.
...…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. Manminder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. KL Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
In brief, complainant’s case is that he owned a black buffalo of Murrah breed and the same was insured with the opposite parties vide policy No.261503/47/14/00546 and the ear tag description of said buffalo was OIC-14926. The health-cum-evaluation certificate was issued by Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Mandi Dabwali. The complainant paid the premium of Rs.1250/- and the amount of sum insured was Rs.50,000/-. The said buffalo used to give milk to the extent of 13 liters per day. It is further averred that unfortunately the buffalo got affected from some disease on 8.8.2014 and was got treated from the doctor, but buffalo could not survive and died on 19.8.2014. Post mortem examination of buffalo was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon. Thereafter, complainant moved an application for getting the claim on account of death of his buffalo, but the claim was repudiated by ops by informing him that the said buffalo had been retagged without the consent of company because at the time of insurance the tag was intact in the inner side of the animal whereas at the time of death it was found outer side of the ear. The claim of the complainant has been wrongly refused by making lame excuse by ops. In fact no retagging has been done as stated in the repudiation letter. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant also got insured his another buffalo with the ops which bears the ear tag description OIC-16003 and ops by taking the benefits of those photographs are denying the claim of complainant. The complainant made number of rounds to the ops and requested them to give him the insured amount but ops put off the matter and harassed the complainant and finally refused to give the insured amount vide letter dated 13.7.2015. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and replied that the buffalo of the complainant was insured with the ops but the same was insured with ops by a composite insurance policy alongwith other heads of cattle vide policy No.261503/47/14/00546 dated 5.12.2013 but all the heads of cattle were insured subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Livestock insurance policy. The buffalo was ear tagged vide ear tag no. OIC-14926 by the insurer at the time of insurance. In the Health cum Evaluation Certificate, the beneficiary also gave a duly signed certificate by which he undertook that he will be responsible for maintenance of the ear tag of the animal. It has been further submitted that the tag is always put in the inner side of the ear of the insured cattle showing number of the tag in the inner side of the ear. The buffalo of complainant was tagged in the right ear showing number on the inner side of the ear at the time of insurance. On receiving the intimation of the death of insured buffalo, the ops appointed an investigator to investigate the matter. During the investigation, the investigator found that the tag put in the right ear of the dead buffalo is showing its number on the outer side of the ear of the dead buffalo. As per report of Investigator, the dead buffalo had been retagged by the complainant without any authority and without the consent of the insurer and against the terms and conditions of the Livestock Insurance policy. This is the clear case of tampering with the tag resulting into repudiation of the claim of complainant. Thus, the claim of complainant is legally and rightly repudiated by the insurer.
3. By way of evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of health cum evaluation certificate Ex.C1, copy of post mortem report Ex.C2, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C3, schedule of premium Ex.C4, insurance policy Ex.C5 and photographs Ex,C6 to Ex.C9. On the other hand, ops tendered affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, Branch Manager Ex.R1, copy of policy schedule Ex.R2, copy of health cum evaluation certificate Ex.R3, copy of repudiation letter Ex.R4 and copy of report of investigator Ex.R5.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. The insurance of the buffalo in question of the complainant with the ops vide ear tag description No. OIC-14926 is not disputed. The said insured buffalo of the complainant died on 19.8.2014 and post mortem examination of buffalo was conducted. On submission of claim to the ops by the complainant, the opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter Ex.C3 on the ground that retagging of the animal has been done without the consent of company. The ops have made the basis of repudiation, the report of Investigator Ex.R5. But we see no substance in the plea of the opposite parties. The above said tag was very much present in the ear of the buffalo in question at the time of post mortem report and doctor has written its number as OIC-14926 in the post mortem report Ex.C2. From the photograph of dead buffalo Ex.C9, it is also evident that tag was very much present in the right ear of the buffalo. The opposite parties have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that tag in the right ear of dead buffalo is showing its number on the outer side which is without any basis and same is not justified.
6. Keeping in view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the sum assured of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for the death of his insured buffalo within a period of 45 days 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 order 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:25.01.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
