| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 224 of 9.10.2020 Decided on: 1.8.2024 Lakhwinder Singh son of Surat Singh, resident of village Lalwa, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. & Head Office: A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office: Near Shiv Motors, Kainchiyan, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh.Pushvinder Singh, President Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Navi Khan, counsel for complainant. Sh.Rakesh Malhotra, counsel for OPs. ORDER PUSHVINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT - The instant complaint is filed by Lakhwinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
- It is averred in the complaint that the complainant got insured his indigenous milch cow under the live stock (cattle) insurance policy of OPs by paying a premium of Rs.2360/- vide policy No.233591/47/2018/47 for the period from 9.3.2018 to 8.3.2019.At the time of inception of policy, livestock of the complainant was inspected and verified at the spot and only thereafter the policy of the cow was issued by the OPs. The complainant getting the policy renewed from time to time. Under the aforesaid policy cow of the complainant was insured for an amount of Rs.50,000/-.
- That the insured cow of the complainant died on 14.9.2018.Proper intimation of death of the cow was made to the OPs. Spot verification was conducted by the OPs. Complainant handed over all the relevant documents and certificates as required to the OPs and made request for payment of the policy amount but the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately the OPs repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds. That the OPs indulged in mal practice and unfair trade practice due to which complainant is suffering from great mental agony, tension, harassment, humiliation and inconvenience at the hands of OPs. Complainant also got serves legal notice dated 22.9.2020 upon the OPs but all in vain. On this back ground the complainant has filed the instant complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- alonghwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f. the date of discharge till realization; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and humiliation and also to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
- Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and filed written reply having contested the claim by raising preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands . It is submitted that the alleged cow was purchased by the complainant in April,2017 but it was got insured by him in the month of March,2018 after a gap of one year the reason behind being that when it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the cow is not well and remain sick. That on going through the physical health of carcass by the Investigator of OP Dr.J.S.Madhok, he found that the animal was severally debilited and appeared to have been sick for quite a long time. It was also observed by the investigator that the animal was treated for 3 days only. It was further revealed by the investigator that the colour of the animal/cow in the insurance policy as well as in the health certificate is brownish whereas dead animal/cow was of black colour .
- On merits, it is admitted to the extent that an indigenous milch cow, mixed breed, Brownish Colour, 5 years 0 month age with ear tag No.233591-1363, chip No.900108001805509 was got insured in the name of S.Lakhwinder Singh S/o Sh.Surat Singh of village Lalwa, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala for a sum of Rs.50,000/- by the OPs vide policy No.233591/47/2018/47 w.e.f.9.3.2018 to 8.3.2019. The alleged body of the dead cow was shown to Dr.J.S.Madhok, Investigator of the OPs which was not the same that was insured by the OPs at the time of inception of the policy. It is admitted that the complainant supplied all the relevant documents to the Investigator and after going through the investigation report with documents from Dr.J.S.Madhok and also going through the official record, OPs informed about the repudiation of his claim. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- In evidence, ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C1 copy of policy,Ex.C2 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C3 copy of legal notice, Exs.C4 and C5 postal receipts and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- From the complaint and the reply filed by the OPs we find that un disputedly a cow of complainant was insured with the OPs. However, insurance policy is on the file as Ex.C1. The OPs have alleged that the body of dead cow shown to Dr.J.S.Madhok, Investigator of the OPs by the complainant was not the same which was got insured by the OPs at the time of inception of the policy. So there is only the dispute that the cow which was insured was not the same regarding which the claim has been sought by the complainant.
- In order to prove his claim the complainant has firstly deposed by way of affidavit and has also produced the copies of notice alongwith postal receipts. The documents have been produced by the OPs as the investigation report has been proved as Ex.OP3 which was prepared by Dr.J.S.Madhok. Alongwith this report the photographs of dead body of cow and postmortem report of dead cow and veterinary health certificate have been attached. It has been stated by Dr.J.S.Madhok in his report, Ex.OP3 that micro chip No.900108001805509 was extracted from the dead cow .Same number of micro chip/ear tag is mentioned in the insurance policy which has been proved by the OPs themselves as Ex.OP1. The dispute has been raised by the OPs that as per report of Investigator colour of dead body was not the same because as per the version of OPs the colour of cow which was insured was brownish whereas the colour of dead body of cow was black. We find that when the same micro chip was extracted from the dead body having No. 900108001805509 which was affixed at the time of insurance then no dispute can be raised regarding the identification of the dead cow.
- It has been further alleged by the OPs that the cow had died due to chronic disease and in this regard we find that even if the cow died due to any disease the insurance company cannot deny its liability when the cow died during the period of insurance which is not in dispute. We find that the OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant regarding the cow insured with the OPs for an amount of Rs.50,000/-.
- Accordingly the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to pay the insurance claim to the complainant as per policy,Ex.C1/Ex.OP1 alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of death of cow leaving 15 days till the date of payment. The OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant. As such complainant was compelled to file the present complaint. As such the complainant is entitled for the litigation expenses also and he also suffered mental and physical harassment regarding which he is entitled for compensation and in our view reasonably the complainant is entitled to Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
- The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, and for want of Quorum from long time.
-
-
G.S.Nagi PUSHVINDER SINGH Member President | |
