IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 28th day of January, 2009
Filed on 17/07/2007
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.143/2007
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Sathiyamma 1. Sri. Raju, Clerk, National
Mukesh Bhavanam Insurance Company
Muthukulam Vadakku P.O. Kayamkulam
Karthikappally Village
2. The Manager, National
Insurance Company
Kayamkulam
(By Adv. C.Muraleedharan)
3. Dr. Mohankumaar
National Insurance Company
Kayamkulam
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant is the owner of the cow which conceived twice. She purchased the cow for an amount of Rs.17,500/- (Rupees seventeen thousand and five hundred only). The complainant availed insurance for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) from the 2nd opposite party for the said cow. The lactation with regard to the second delivery of the cow is coming to a close. In the mean time the said animal was subjected to insemination for umpteen occasions. But the cow did not conceive. On proficient examination by the concerned doctors it is revealed that the cow turned infertile for ever. There after the doctors on behalf of the opposite parties examined the cow and certified that the animal was conceivable. In pursuance of the said observation by the doctors, on 16th May 2007 the cow was once again inseminated in vain. The complainant lodged a claim for the assured sum before the opposite parties. Her claim was repudiated on the basis of the manipulated report of the 3rd opposite party. Aggrieved by this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. Notices were sent. The opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the cow was disabled even before the procurement of the policy. The insemination was effected within four months of the policy being availed. The cow did not conceive for it was disabled even prior to the policy was obtained. The complainant suppressed this material fact from the opposite party. Resultantly, the complainant is disentitled to the insurance amount. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party asserts.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1 and the documents Ext. A1 to A3 were marked. Ext. A1 is the policy certificate, A2 is the doctor’s certificate and A3 is the certificate of another veterinary surgeon. On the side of the opposite parties, there is no oral evidence, and the documents Exts. B1 to B6 were marked.
4. Keeping in mind the contentions of the opposite party, the questions arise for consideration before us are:-
(a) Whether the complainant suppressed any material facts form the opposite parties?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. Concededly the complainant availed a policy from the 2nd opposite party for her cow. The contention of the opposite party is that the insemination was effected immediately after availing the policy, but the cow did not conceive. The cow was afflicted with ailment and disabled even before the complainant got hold of the policy, the opposite party vehemently argues. We analyzed the evidence available on record. It is not disputed that the cow has conceived on a couple of occasions. Notwithstanding closer scrutiny, we find no evidence worth paper which suggest that the cow was disabled or infertile prior to the procuring of the policy. Resultantly, no inference can safely be drawn as to the complainant was willfully suppressed the said aspect from the opposite party at the time the complainant availed the policy from the opposite party. Admittedly after availing the policy the cow was subjected to insemination, but the same yielded no results. In this back drop, we are hardly hesitant to hold that the complainant is entitled to the assured sum. Needless to say the service of the 2nd opposite party is deficient.
6. In the light of the facts and circumstance discussed herein above the 2nd opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of her application for claim till the recovery of the said amount. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs. The said opposite party shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
In the result, the complaint allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of January, 2009.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sathiyamma (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Policy Certificate
Ext.A2 - Doctor’s Certificate
Ext.A3 - Certificate of another Veterinary Surgeon
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Policy Certificate
Ext.B2 - Livestock claim form
Ext.B3 - Permanent total disability certificate
Ext.B4 - Report of Dr.K.S.Mohankumar
Ext.B5 series - Acknowledgement for receipts of money (B5(a) to B5(f)
Ext.B6 - Copy of the registered letter dated 26.4.2007
// True Copy //
B y Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S/F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
