DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.357 of 25-07-2011
Decided on 10-02-2012
Harwinder Singh, aged about 22 years, son of Bhola Singh son of Chhota Singh, Resident of V.Krarwala, Tehsil
Phul, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Reliance Office, Prime Time, SCO 5, Ahta Pritam Singh Sidhu, Amrik
Singh Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Incharge. (Deleted)
The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office: SCO 212, 213, 214, Ist Floor, Sector 34,
Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.
Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Bhagu Road, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Varun Gupta/Sh.Pritam Singh, counsels for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. Sunder Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.2
Sh. Dhan Singh, A.R. of opposite party No.3
Opposite party No.1 deleted
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the cow of HF Cross breed of the complainant was insured with the opposite party Nos.1&2 vide Insurance Certificate No.102955 for IDV of Rs.31,000/- for the period from 08.07.2009 to 07.07.2010. The complainant has alleged that no terms and conditions of the policy were supplied to him. The said cow was insured with the opposite party Nos.1&2 under the Health cum Evaluation Certificate issued by Dr. Ashish Bahia, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Krarwala. The said cow was examined by the Veterinary Doctor who declared that the said animal is free from any disease and is in good health and recommended for Cattle Insurance. A Tag No.R-102955 was allotted to the said cow which has been attached in the ear of the said cow. The above said cow of the complainant died on 13.07.2009 due to electric shock and the post mortem of the said buffalo was conducted by Rural Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Krarwala on 13.07.2009 and concluded from the history, evidence and post mortem report that the animal had died due to electric shock. The due intimation was sent to the opposite party Nos.1&2 for the payment of the claim through the office of Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Bathinda and all the documents with claim Form were submitted by the complainant but the opposite party Nos.1&2 have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 03.12.2009 stating that the death of the animal is within 5 days of issuing the Insurance Certificate and the Policy clearly stats that any claim during the first 15 days of inception of the policy will not be admitted. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have neither intimated nor supplied any such conditions. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to pay the IDV of Rs.31,000/- along with cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have file their separate written statements. The opposite party No.2 has taken the legal objection that the opposite party No.2 has no branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Merely by impleading Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry and Dairy, Bathinda do not give rise to the complainant to file the present complaint as no relief has been sought against the Deputy Director and has been impleaded as party, just to create jurisdiction. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated as per exclusion clause of the policy printed on the backside of the Insurance Cover Note in which it has been stated that the Insurance Company is not liable in case of death of animal due to disease contracted within 15 days from the date of commencement of the risk. As per the documents supplied by the complainant, the Insured cow died on 13.07.2009 and the above said Insurance Cover Note was obtained on 08.07.2009 and the animal had died within 15 days of issuance of the said policy as such the claim of the complainant is not payable. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy have not intentionally produced by the complainant before this Forum. The intimation regarding the death of animals has to be given within 24 hours but the complainant has failed to give intimation regarding the same within stipulated time. The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated after thorough investigation and after receipt of documents from the complainant. The opposite party No.2 has further pleaded that 134 death claims of the insured animals were received, out of which 94 lawful claims have been paid and only 27 have been rejected as per terms and conditions of the policy.
3. The opposite party No.3 has admitted that the cow of Harwinder Singh with IDV of Rs.31,000/- was insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 08.07.2009 to 07.07.2010 and it had died on 13.07.2009 and the post morterm was conducted by Rural Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Krarwala. The opposite party No.3 has pleaded that all the documents i.e. Post Mortem Report, Death Certificate, Treatment Chart, Tag and Photograph were deposited by the concerned Rural Veterinary Officer in the office of the opposite party No.3 and the opposite party No.3 had sent all the original documents to the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through agent Sh. Sanjay vide letter No.2369 dated 27.07.2009. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. sent a list of 134 claims on 12.07.2010 in which 94 were settled, 27 were rejected and 13 were outstanding. The Deputy Director came to know regarding the case of the cow of Harwinder Singh has been rejected. As per the insurance policy, the claim can be claimed after 15 days from the date of insurance. Due to this reason, the complainant had rejected the claim of the complainant.
4. The opposite party No.1 is deleted vide order dated 27.09.2011.
5. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. Arguments heard. Record along with written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
7. The undisputed facts between the parties are that the complainant had purchased the Insurance Policy/Cover Note bearing No.102955 from Reliance General Insurance Company Limited for his Cow of HF Cross Breed after paying the requisite premium. The said cow was insured for the IDV of Rs.31,000/- and a Tag No.R-102955 was issued which was attached in the ear of the said cow. The policy was valid from 08.07.2009 to 07.07.2010. The Insured buffalo had died on 13.07.2009.
8. The disputed facts between the parties are that the complainant has specifically submitted that no terms and conditions of the policy have been supplied to him. He got Health-cum-Evaluation Certificate from Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Krarwala to the effect that the animal is free from any disease and is in good health and recommended for Cattle Insurance. The Insured cow had died on 13.07.2009 and the Post Mortem examination of the said cow was conducted by Rural Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Krarwala and the due intimation with regard to the claim of the said cow was sent by the complainant to the opposite party No.3 along with claim Form and other requisite documents. The opposite party No.3 lodged the claim of the complainant with the Insurance Company i.e. opposite party Nos.1&2 and the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry and Diarying (Pashupalan), Bathinda sent a letter No.2369 dated 22.07.2009 to Insurance Company but they have repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant had received repudiation letter of his claim from the opposite party No.3 just two months back.
9. The opposite party No.2 has submitted that the said cow of the complainant had died 5 days after the issuance of the Insurance Policy/ Cover Note as such the claim of the complainant has been repudiated. The Insured cattle had died on 13.07.2009 and the Insurance policy was obtained on 08.07.2009 and the animal had died within 15 days of the issuance of the policy as such the claim of the complainant is not payable as per the above said exclusion clause. The intimation regarding the death of the deceased cattle has not been given within 24 hours by the complainant to the Insurance Company and the deceased cow has suffered from disease within 15 days of the issuance of the above said insurance policy. The opposite party No.2 has taken the legal objection that there is no branch office of the opposite party No.2 at Bathinda as such this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.
10. The complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint that the cow had died due to electric shock. Death Certificate Ex.C-4 also shows that the said animal had died due to electric shock. In the Post Mortem report also the cause of death of the animal, is electric shock. Thus, the ground for repudiation assigned by the Insurance Company in their reply that the cow had died 5 days after inception of the policy and within 15 days and the animal was suffering from pre-existing disease and the intimation has not been given within 24 hours, both objections are not tenable as the animal had died due to electric shock and the intimation was given to the opposite party No.3 by the complainant within time.
11. Moreover, the terms and conditions of the policy have not been supplied to the complainant and no copy of MOU has been placed on file by the opposite parties.
12. The legal objection taken by the opposite party No.2 is that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as there is no branch office of the Insurance Company within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the opposite party No.3 has been impleaded by the complainant just to create jurisdiction.
13. Further, with regard to the legal objection taken by the opposite parties that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as there is no branch office of the Insurance Company at Bathinda, is also not tenable as a perusal of documents placed on file reveal that the insurance claim of the complainant has been sent by Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry & Diarying (Pashupalan), Bathinda vide its letter No.2369 dated 22.07.2009 to the Insurance Company. Moreover, one of the opposite parties holds and runs its office at Bathinda. Thus, this Forum has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present compliant u/s 11(b) of the 'Act'.
14. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company i.e. opposite party No.2. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- against the opposite party No.2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.2 is directed to pay the IDV of Rs.31,000/- of the Insured Animal to the complainant. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, interest @ 9% p.a. will yield on the amount of Rs.31,000/- till realization.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
10-02-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
