Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/491

Mr.Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Ins.Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 491 of 15.07.2014

Date of Decision            :   13.07.2016 

 

Mr Avtar Singh aged 27 years s/o Malkiat Singh r/o VPO Gahour, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., D.O.-11 Sona Complex, Near Fire Brigade, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana through Sr.Divisional Manager.

2.Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC), Village Dewatwal, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory.

…Opposite parties 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :          Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For OP1                         :          Sh.B.S.Rampal, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Complaint already dismissed as withdrawn vide order

                                                 dated 29.09.2014.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant, an unemployed contracted loan from OP2 for purchase of seven buffaloes/cows for earning livelihood. OP2 for securing its interest got the said buffaloes/cows insured with OP1 for the period from 7.1.2013 to 6.1.2014 against policy No.233900/47/2013/56. On expiry of said policy, OP2 again took Livestock(Cattle) Insurance policy from OP1 for period from 7.1.2014 to 6.1.2015. Premium amount of Rs.15,730/- was deducted for insurance of one cow and six buffaloes from the account of the complainant. OP2 at the time of lodging of claim supplied the policy schedule consisting of 3 pages. Those documents were provided with respect to the policy No.233900/47/2014/33. During the tenure of this second purchased policy, one buffalo expired on 14.3.2014, qua which, due intimation was given to OP1. However, OP1 vide letter dated 23.6.2014, informed the complainant as if one Sh.Nirvair Singh appointed as independent investigator for verifying the claim of the complainant. Further through that letter, it was informed as if as per report of independent investigator, no microchip was found in the carcass of the buffalo and as such, claim is repudiated. Through that letter, it was further informed that all the insured cattles under the policy were duly certified by the Veterinary Doctor as having distinct microchip and as such, in absence of microchip, the claim is not admissible. So, after receipt of that letter, complainant approached OP1 with the request to pay the claim amount after inspection of remaining buffaloes because microchip was not inserted actually, but OP1 reiterated its stand of refusal. That repudiation of claim alleged to be illegal by claiming that in reality none of the buffaloes/cows were having such microchips with numbers mentioned in the policy documents. Objection of absence of microchip on the body of dead cattle alleged to be illegal. It is claimed that OP1 instead of initiating disciplinary action against the erring officials and Veterinary Doctor, has dared to repudiate the claim in illegal manner and that conduct of OPs alleged to be unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. No Veterinary Doctor visited the site at the time of insuring the buffaloes/cows and as such, question of certification by the veterinary doctor does not arise. No microchip was inserted at the time of insurance is the claim of the complainant. Rather, it is claimed that certificate regarding insertion of microchip by veterinary doctor alleged to be false. Reality of death of one of the cattle head, out of the seven cattles financed by Op2, has not been denied by OP1. Complainant claimed that he is ready to get the medical tests conducted for verification of microchips. Those microchips were not inserted in any of the insured cattle heads. By pleading deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, this complaint filed for getting the insured amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @12% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim till realization. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.7500/- more claimed.

2.                In the written statement filed by OP1, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the insurance policy from OP1 with validity period from 7.1.2014 to 8.1.2015 for insurance of 6 buffaloes and one cow. Terms and conditions of the policy are alleged to be binding. At the time of issue of insurance policy, the officer of insurance company visited the house of complainant, where the insured cattle heads were present. In the presence of the complainant, the officer of insurance company installed the microchips in the body of the insured 6 buffaloes and one cow for identification of the insured cattle heads. Complainant is fully aware that in case, microchip not found in the body of the insured dead cattle, then his claim liable to be repudiated. After receiving the intimation from the complainant qua death of alleged insured buffalo on 14.3.2014,Sh.Nirvair Singh, an independent investigator, was appointed for verifying the facts. That investigator availed the services of Ms.Dolly Verma, Assistant to Retd. Veterinary Officer Dr.Ramesh Chhabra. As per reports of Ms.Dolly Verma and Sh.Nirvair Singh, no microchip was found in the carcass of the buffalo and that is why, Op1 sent letter dated 23.6.2014 for seeking clarification of the facts from the complainant. However, complainant failed to respond for proving that carcass of buffalo was of insured buffalo and that is why, vide letter dated 17.7.2014, OP1 informed the complainant about repudiation of the claim. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that microchip numbers mentioned against the buffaloes and cow in the policy documents. It is claimed that microchips were properly inserted in the body of 6 buffaloes and one cow. However, microchip reader, the investigator/veterinary doctor did not find that microchip in the dead buffalo.

3.                Complaint against OP2 has already been dismissed as withdrawn on 29.9.2014 by suffering statement by counsel for the complainant.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 along with documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.RA of Sh.A.P.Singh, Sr. Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd; Ex.RB of Dr.Ramesh Chhabra(Veterinary Doctor); Ex.RC of Sh.Nirvair Singh (Independent appointed investigator); Ex.RD of Miss Dolly Verma, (whose services as Microchip Reader were availed) and even tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. Thereafter, counsel for OP1 closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments of appearing counsels for the parties alone heard and records gone through minutely. 

7.                Perusal of policy schedule Ex.C2=Ex.R1 along with affidavit Ex.RB of Dr.Ramesh Chhabra and affidavit Ex.RD of Miss.Dolly Verma establishes that microchips were inserted in the body of six insured buffaloes and one cow at the time of insurance. Those microchips were inserted for the identification of the insured cattle heads. It was owing to insertion of these microchips in the body of the insured cattle heads that numbers of those microchips mentioned in the policy schedule Ex.C2=Ex.R1. Documents cannot tell lie, albeit the persons may. As the policy schedule Ex.C2=Ex.R1 was supplied to the complainant at the time of insurance of the cattle heads and as such, complainant definitely got the knowledge of numbers of microchips inserted in the insured cattle heads because numbers of those inserted microchips specifically recorded in Ex.C2=Ex.R1. As Dr.Ramesh Chhabra, Veterinary Doctor inserted those microchips and issued certificate Ex.R3 in that respect and as such, direct evidence of veterinary doctor, who inserted the microchips at the time of insurance through affidavit Ex.RB, enough to establish as if actually microchips in the insured cattle heads/buffaloes/cow were inserted at the time of insurance. If these microchips were inserted at the time of insurance for identification of the insured cattle heads, then certainly availability of the same was required at the time of stacking claim of insurance in the carcass of insured cattle head. However, those microchips were not found in the dead buffalo qua which, claim lodged by the complainant and as such, repudiation of claim certainly is justified, particularly when OPs repudiated the same in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy after getting due investigation conducted from independent investigator Sh.Nirvair Singh.

8.                Ex.R4, the report of investigator Sh.Nirvair Singh, shows as if he in company of Miss.Dolly Verma visited the premises of the complainant on 14.3.2014 for holding enquiry about the identity of insured dead cattle head. That report Ex.R4 gets corroboration from the copy of statement Ex.R7 of Miss.Dolly Verma as well as contents of her affidavit Ex.RD. Contents of Ex.RD along with report Ex.R4 and statement Ex.R7 of Miss.Dolly Verma established that on reading with the help of Microchip Reader,  the inserted microchip found to be not there in the scapular region of the dead buffalo. So, report Ex.R4 of Sh.Nirvair Singh, Investigator is appropriate that during investigation, he with the help of Miss.Dolly Verma found the microchip to be not there in the carcass of dead buffalo. Even if the breed of the dead cattle head may be murrah as mentioned in Ex.R4 or in the policy schedule document Ex.C2, but despite that due identity of the insured dead cattle head could have been established through traces of microchip only. However, those traces of microchip not find from the carcass of the buffalo died on 14.3.2014 and as such, genuineness of the claim certainly not stood established, particularly when the investigator on oral questioning of complainant found as if complainant had already sold the previous insured cattle stock and purchased new one. Sh.Nirvair Singh, investigator has no malice or ill-will against the complainant and as such, he definitely would not have mentioned this fact erroneously in para V(e) of his report Ex.R4. In Ex.R2, the policy document, it is specifically mentioned “No Chip no claim is payable”. As terms of this Ex.R2 were made known to the complainant at the time of insurance and as such, it was for complainant to prove that dead buffalo in fact was insured one. Complainant failed to produce the report of postmortem of dead buffalo and as such, the evidence produced by OP1 fully believable that owing to non availability of microchip in the carcass, the identity of dead buffalo as insured buffalo is not established.

9.                The claim of the complainant not straightway repudiated. Rather, letter Ex.R5 dated 23.6.2014 issued to the complainant for calling upon him to substantiate his claim qua identity of dead buffalo as the insured buffalo. Despite affording of this opportunity to the complainant through letter Ex.R5, he failed to submit reply or the requisite documents and that is why, his claim repudiated through letter Ex.R6 of date 17.7.2014. So, submissions advanced by Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate representing complainant has no force that as microchips were not found in the remaining alive cattle heads even and as such, report about insertion of microchips at the time of insurance is false. Rather, the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove falsity of the claim of insertion of these microchips, despite the fact that OPs produced affidavit Ex.RB of Dr.Ramesh Chhabra and Ex.RD of Miss.Dolly Verma to establish that these microchips were inserted for identification of insured cattle heads by them. So, claim of the complainant rightly repudiated, owing to which, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.              Benefit from ratio of case titled as National Insurance Company Limited and another vs. Roop Dass and another-2004(1)CPC-573(State Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh) cannot be availed by counsel for the complainant because after going through paras no.7 and 8 of the reported case, it is made out that valuation certificate Ex.C1; Livestock Claim form Ex.C3 and post-mortem examination report Ex.C4 were the documents enough to establish as if portion of the tag was in possession of the insurer and there was wrong plea taken regarding identity of the dead insured buffalo. That is not the position in the case before us as discussed in detail above. There is no material on record of this complaint to establish that portion of tag is in possession of OP1. So, facts of the reported case are distinct than those of the facts of the case before us.

11.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:13.07.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.