BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.308 of 2017
Date of Institution : 28.11.2017
Date of Decision : 28.11.2018.
Shakti Singh son of Shri Ram Kumar, resident of village Darba Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Office at Guest House Building, IInd Floor Anaj Mandi Gate Near Dharamshala Janta Bhawan Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L. AHUJA …………..PRESIDENT.
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. V.P. Saharan, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The case of complainant in brief is that complainant was owner of one cow. The complainant got insured the said cow through the opposite party vide policy No.47/2016/2882 valid from 1.3.2016 to 28.2.2019 and paid the requisite premium for this policy and the op issued the above said policy to the complainant. A tag No.HL-DB 232419 was affixed in the ear of the said cow. At the time of insurance, the cow was not suffering from any disease and was giving milk. It is further averred that suddenly on 21.1.2017, the cow of the complainant fell ill. The complainant got medically treated her from Veterinary Hospital, Darba Kalan and complainant had given the best medical treatment to his cow which was going on and ultimately on 25.3.2017 at about 5.30 p.m., the said cow died. The Veterinary doctor has opined that the cow has died due to downer syndrome and thereafter the matter was reported to the company. The photographs of dead body of the cow were also taken and all the relevant records/ documents were sent to the company for getting the insured amount. That the op sent their surveyor and he also recorded the statement of respectable persons of the village including the complainant and they all supported the version of the complainant but on 11.7.2017 the op repudiated the claim of complainant vide claim No.47/17/277 on the following grounds:-
- On the basis of No Tag, no claim as mentioned in the policy
- Death of your cow falls within 15 days from the inception of the policy as death per policy clause
- No properly treatment of animal.
It is further averred that as stated above, the complainant got the cow medically examined at his best and there was no negligence on the part of the complainant at all. The cow has not died within 15 days from the date of inception of policy. The tag was affixed in the ear of the cow at the time of her death and thus complainant has not violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Rather the op has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The repudiation of claim of complainant by the op is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The value of cow of complainant was about Rs.70,000/- at the time of her death and the complainant is entitled to get this amount/ insured amount from the company alongwith interest thereon from the date of death of cow till the date of realization of the amount. It is further averred that on 5.9.2017 a legal notice was served upon the op by complainant but the op through their counsel has given a evasive reply in order to save their skin. The complainant is suffering from mental tension, agony, harassment etc. at the hands of op for his no fault. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement resisting the complaint. While admitting the factum of insurance, it is submitted that it is wrong to suggest that complainant got the cow medically treated and gave best treatment to the cow. In fact, as per the treatment slip of the cow issued by the veterinary doctor at GVH, Darba Kalan had advised to take the cow to veterinary clincs, Luvas, Hisar for further treatment on 22.2.2017. But the complainant did not act upon the advice of the doctor and did not take the cow to Hisar for treatment. The complainant has not placed on the file any record of treatment of the dead cow at Hisar. It is further submitted that on receiving the intimation of death of the insured cow, a surveyor was appointed by the op. After receiving and perusing the report of the surveyor, the op had repudiated the claim on the sole ground that the insured cow was not given proper and required treatment as advised by the veterinary doctor GVH, Darba Kalan. The proper reply to the notice was given by Mr. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate in accordance with the documents available in the records. It is further submitted that the insured declared value of the dead cow was Rs.40,000/- and not Rs.70,000/- as alleged by complainant. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
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.CW1/A and affidavit of Sh. Ladhu Ram Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar Ex.CW3/A, affidavit of Dr. Vinod Kumar Mittal, Veterinary Surgeon Ex.CW4/A, affidavit of Dr. Mukesh Kumar, Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Veterinary Hospital village Darba Kalan Ex.CW4/A, repudiation letter dated 11.7.2017 Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3 and copy of photograph Ex.C4. On the other hand, opposite party has furnished affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, Branch Manager Ex.R1, copy of prescription slip Ex.R2, copy of health cum evaluation certificate Ex.R3, copy of post mortem report Ex.R4, copy of document regarding description of animal Ex.R5, copy of claim form Ex.R6, copy of letter dated 10.4.2017 Ex.R7, copy of claim security sheet Ex.R8, copy of repudiation letter Ex.R9 and policy schedule Ex.R10.
6. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that complainant was owner of a cow which he got insured from opposite party for the period 1.3.2016 to 28.2.2019 on payment of requisite premium. A tag bearing No.HL-DB 232419 was affixed on the ear of the cow after issuance of health cum evaluation certificate and the insured value was Rs.40,000/-. As per the averments of complainant, the said cow suddenly fell ill on 21.1.2017 and he got medically treated her from Veterinary Hospital, Darba Kalan, District Sirsa, but however, the said cow died on 25.3.2017 at about 5.30 p.m. It is settled principle of law that it is legal obligation of the complainant to prove his complaint by leading all cogent and convincing evidence. The perusal of the complaint reveals that complainant has alleged date of death of cow as 25.3.2017 at about 5.30 p.m. As per contents of the legal notice sent by complainant through his counsel, date of death of cow is mentioned as 25.3.2017 at about 5.30 p.m, but however, complainant has alleged date of death in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A as 26.3.2017 after overwriting the typed figure of 25.3.2017 and this over writing does not bear signatures or initial of the complainant. As per the post mortem report, date of death of cow has been recorded as 26.3.2017 at 5.30 p.m. and date of post mortem as 27.3.2017. So date of death of cow as alleged by complainant does not match with the date of death recorded by doctor in post mortem report Ex.R4. The perusal of affidavit of complainant reveals that complainant has deposed that he has made efforts after 21.1.2017 to give treatment to the cow but unfortunately she died on 25.3.2017. But the perusal of the evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has not placed on record any document or prescription slip issued by doctor that he managed to provide further treatment after the advise of the Veterinary doctor who gave his prescription on 22.2.2017 as per prescription slip Ex.R2. As per Ex.R2, the doctor had advised to take the cow to Veterinary Clinic, LUVAS, Hisar.
7. No doubt, after the death of said cow, due intimation was given by complainant to the op and thereafter surveyor was appointed who conducted survey and submitted his report. Since, the complainant has not placed on record any evidence from which it could be presumed that the complainant made any follow up efforts to get good treatment from veterinary clinic, Hisar or at some other place for his cow, as a result of which the said cow expired on alleged date 25.3.2017 or 26.3.2017. It appears from the evidence of complainant that complainant did not take any initiative further to get his cow cured after the best possible treatment for her and opposite party has rightly repudiated claim vide repudiation letter Ex,R9 on the basis of not properly treating of the animal.
8. In view of the above, the complaint of the complainant appears to be devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed but with 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:28.11.2018. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
