BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
C.C.No.246/2017.
Date of Instt.: 26.09.2017.
Date of Decision:17.10.2018.
Karamjeet Singh aged 51 years son of Baldev Singh, resident of village Luthera, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited 17, Industrial Area in front of Anaj Mandi through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
- Animal Husbandry & Dairing Department, VPO Bhodia Khera, Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Deputy Director.
- Dr. Sushil GVH Surgeon Nangal, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad.
..Respondents/OPs.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.
Argued by: Sh.Rajesh Verma, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh. N.D. Mittal, Adv. for the OP no. 1.
OP no. 2 & 3 exparte.
ORDER:
The present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties with the averments that the complainant obtained an insurance policy bearing no. 261504/47/2017/000162 from OP no. 1 for an insured amount of Rs. 50,000/- for his buffalo. The policy was valid from 21.3.2016 to 20.3.2019 and tag number 192166 was issued to the insured animal. It is further submitted that during the subsistence of the insurance policy the insured buffalo died on 4.1.2017 and on the same date the complainant got conducted post mortem on the dead body of the animal from Veterinary Surgeon, Village Nangal. The complainant also gave intimation to the OPs regarding death of the insured buffalo.
2. It is further submitted that the complainant submitted insurance claim to OP no. 1 and it was assured by OP no. 1 that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- will be released to the complainant at the earliest. However, thereafter the claim of the complainant was rejected by the OP no. 1.
3. It is further submitted that the rejection of insurance claim of the complainant by the OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to him. The complainant has further prayed that the present complaint may be accepted and the OPs may be directed for making a payment of Rs. 50,000-/- as insurance claim to him along-with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
4. On being served, the OP no. 1 appeared through its counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action and estoppel etc., have been raised.
5. In reply on merits, it is submitted that after receiving intimation regarding death of the insured buffalo the OP no. 1 appointed Shri Varinder Kumar Bhatia an independent surveyor for visiting the spot and verification of facts. The said surveyor inspected the body of dead animal on the same day and submitted his report dated 7.1.2017, wherein the surveyor has submitted that the tag on the deceased animal was not intact as its lock side was not in the animal’s ear and as such the tag was found tampered/broken. It is further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy no claim is payable in case the tag inserted in the ear of the animal is found to be tampered or broken. In case the tag gets broken or damaged due to any reason, it is the duty of insured to report this fact immediately to the insurer and to get the re-tagging done. Therefore, the claim in the present case was not payable and the insurer had no alternative except to repudiate the same. It is further submitted that the repudiation of the insurance claim in the present case is perfectly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and sustainable in the eyes of law. The OP no. 1 has further prayed that the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. OP no. 2 and 3 also resisted the complaint by filing a joint written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, maintainability and estoppel etc., have been raised.
7. In reply on merits, it is submitted that on 4.1.2017, OP no. 3 was posted as Veterinary Surgeon in village Nangal and Veterinary Hospital of village Luthera was under his jurisdiction. On that day, on receiving a telephonic message from the complainant he conducted post-mortem on the dead body of his buffalo on the same date. At the time of conducting the post mortem OP no. 3 also checked the tag number and found that the tag bearing no. OIC-192166 was present in the ear of the dead animal. After conducting the post-mortem the OP no. 3 observed that the animal had died on account of heart attack.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit CW1/A and the documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of J.C. Lalar Divisional Manager on behalf of OP no. 1 as Exhibit RW1/A and the documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7 and closed the evidence of OP no. 1.
9. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. In the present case, it is the not disputed that the complainant had obtained insurance for his buffalo for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from OP no. 1. It is also not disputed that the buffalo of the complainant had died on 4.1.2017 i.e. during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also not disputed that post-mortem on the body of the deceased animal was conducted on 4.1.2017 by the Veterinary Surgeon vide which the Veterinary Surgeon has opined that the animal had died on account of heart failure. It is also not disputed that the tag bearing no. 192166 which was issued by the OP no. 1 for the insured animal was present in the ear of the animal at the time of post-mortem and at the time when the deceased animal was inspected by the surveyor. The insurance claim in the present case has been repudiated by OP no. 1 only on the ground that at the time of inspection of the dead animal by the surveyor the tag inserted in the ear of the animal was found to be tampered or broken. After perusing the post-mortem report, inspection report and other documents placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the ground taken by OP no. 1 in repudiating the claim of the complainant is not tenable. In its inspection report the surveyor has ascertained that the physical details of the dead animal are identical to the physical description of the buffalo which was insured. From perusal of the inspection report, it is evident that the physical description of the dead animal are identical to the insured animal. From inspection report, it is also evident the persons of the locality had confirmed it that the complainant was owner of the deceased buffalo. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the insurance claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated on a technical ground that the tag inserted in the ear of the animal was found tampered. It is also pertinent to mention here that before its death an animal strikes/rubs its body with the ground on account of severe pain. The possibility of breaking of the tag cannot be ruled out on account of the above action.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is allowed against OP no. 1 and repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant by the OP no. 1 is hereby set aside. The OP no. 1 is directed for making a payment of Rs. 50,000/- as insurance claim to the complainant along-with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization. The OP no. 1 is further directed for making a payment of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and litigation charges to the complainant. The present order be complied with within a period of one month, otherwise the amount will carry an interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the default period. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM. Dt.17.10.2018
(Raghbir Singh)
President
(Rajni Goyat) (Jasvinder Singh) District Consumer Disputes
Member Member Redressal Fourm,Fatehabad
