BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.288 of 2016
Date of Institution : 25.10.2016
Date of Decision : 15.12.2017.
Ran Singh aged about 48 years son of Shri Sarwan, resident of village Kuranganwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager, having its office at Opp. Janta Bhawan, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Managing Director, having its Regd. Office at Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- 110002.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L. AHUJA …………..PRESIDENT.
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of complainant in brief is that complainant was owner of a brown colour cow. The complainant got his above referred cow insured with opposite party no.1 at Sr. No.12 of insurance policy No.261503/47/2015/715 through Deputy Director Live Stock Insurance Scheme valid w.e.f. 17.2.2015 to 16.2.2016 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and had paid the premium amount of Rs.1000/- plus taxes. A health cum evaluation certificate was also issued for this cow by the ops. A tag bearing No.160002/354900 was inserted in the ear of the cow. It is further averred that on 6.7.2015 at about 10.40 a.m., the cow of complainant died due to snake bite. However, the complainant tried his best to get her treated but the cow died. The information was immediately sent to the Veterinary hospital and post mortem was conducted upon the body of the cow on the same day. Post mortem report bearing no.03/15 dated 6.7.2015 was prepared by the veterinary doctor in this regard. It is further averred that information regarding the death of the cow was immediately supplied to the ops and complainant lodged the claim bearing No.47/16/00052 alongwith all the necessary and requisite documents and a live stock claim form cum valuation certificate was also furnished with the ops through the veterinary surgeon, Government Veterinary Hospital describing the spices, breed, sex, colour, physical identification mark and age etc. of the deceased cow. A live stock claim form was also furnished with the ops by the complainant himself in this regard. That the insurance company after receipt of the information regarding claim had appointed Shri Risal Singh Investigator as surveyor/ investigator to investigate the matter and to give the report about the same. The investigator had visited the house of the complainant and had collected all the required documents. He was also handed over both the tags bearing No.344900. The investigator had properly checked and identified the deceased cow and had compared the same with the details of the insured cow and found that the died cow is the same which was insured with the ops. The investigator assured the complainant that he shall get the claim amount within 10-12 days of submitting his report. It is further averred that during process of the claim it was disclosed by the officials of the ops while issuing the health certificate by the doctor inadvertently and by clerical mistake, the doctor mentioned the Tag No.354900 instead of 344900 which was inadvertent mistake on the part of the doctor hence officials of the ops asked the doctor to file the affidavit in this respect. Hence, the doctor duly sworn and submitted the affidavit with the ops as per their requirement. It is further averred that it is necessary to mention here that in previous policy Suraksha Yojna w.e.f. 31.1.2014 to 30.1.2015, the Tag of the cow of the complainant was duly mentioned 160002/344900 and on the continuation tags were remained intact, hence it is very much clear that there is a clerical mistake on the part of the doctor while issuing the health certificate which has no adverse effect on the right and claim of the complainant. It is further averred that complainant had visited the office of ops and requested them to pass the compensation/ insurance claim to him on account of death of his insured cow but at all the eventualities, the officials of the ops kept on lingering the matter with one pretext or the other and it was about a week ago that the officials of the ops vide their repudiation letter informed the complainant that they have repudiated his claim for the reason ‘No Tag No Claim” and he will not get the insured amount from them. That the complainant was the owner of two cows only and both the cows could be easily identified with the description mentioned in the health cum evaluation certificate. The complainant was having no other cow with the same description breed etc. to that of the deceased. The ops have arbitrarily refused the claim of the complainant and as such he is legally entitled for the amount of Rs.40,000/- i.e. the sum assured alongwith interest thereon as well as compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing unnecessary harassment to him alongwith litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi; suppression of true and material facts; estoppal etc and that the ops have rendered the claim of the complainant as No claim in a legal and lawful manner on the ground that ‘No Tag No Claim.” So, there was/is no deficiency of service on the part of the ops in repudiating the claim of the complainant. 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 as no tag was present in the ear of dead animal at the time of post mortem as well as inspection of carcass by the investigator. On merits, it is submitted that it is correct that the complainant got insured a cow with the op company vide insurance policy No.261503/47/2015/715 and that the insured cow was affixed with tag bearing No.160002/3549000. It is further submitted that the claim lodged by the complainant was scrutinized by the ops and the factum of death of insured cow was got investigated by the ops from Shri Risal Singh, approved investigator, Sirsa who conducted the investigation and reported that dead cow was affixed with tag no.160002/344900, whereas the insured cow was affixed with tag no.160002/354900. It is further submitted that it is wrong that tag number was wrongly mentioned in the health certificate of insured cow. The complainant has propounded a false and baseless story. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C2, copy of post mortem report Ex.C3, copy of policy Ex.C4, copy of registration acknowledgment of Haryana Live Stock Development Board Ex.C5, copy of details of insurance of year 2014-2015 Ex.C6 and copy of adhar card Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.R1 and copy of repudiation letter dated 18.8.2016 Ex.R2.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of repudiation letter Ex.C2, copy of post mortem report Ex.C3, copy of policy Ex.C4, copy of registration acknowledgment of Haryana Live Stock Development Board Ex.C5, copy of details of insurance of year 2014-2015 Ex.C6 and copy of adhar card Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 and copy of repudiation letter as Ex.R2.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that complainant has got his cow insured with the op no.1 through Deputy Director Live Stock Insurance Scheme w.e.f. 17.2.2015 to 16.2.2016 and a health cum evaluation certificate was issued by the ops but, however, there is typographical mistake in the policy duly issued by the ops. As per report of Haryana Live Stock Development Board Ex.C5, the tag bearing No.344900 was affixed in the ear of the cow but, however, inadvertently it has been mentioned as 354900 in the policy Ex.C4. This is lapse on the part of the insurance company while issuing the policy Ex.C4. Learned counsel for the ops has also contended that if there is any lapse on the part of ops while issuing insurance policy Ex.C4 qua the tag number of the cow which was duly insured by the insurance company vide this policy, the complainant can approach the ops and they can only review if there is actually error of number of tag.
7. In view of the above, we partly allow this complaint and direct the complainant to approach the opposite parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order to reconsider his claim by making correction of tag number in their policy on the basis of report/ registration acknowledgement of the Haryana Live Stock Development Board in which it has been mentioned as 344900 and post mortem was also conducted on the cow bearing tag number 344900. The opposite parties are directed to re-open and reconsider the claim of the complainant if it is found that there is error in the number of tag in the policy and to settle and pay the claim to the complainant if same is payable as per terms and conditions of the policy within further period of one month of approaching of the complainant. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:15.12.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
