DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.356 of 25-07-2011
Decided on 10-02-2012
Malkiat Singh, aged about 47 years, son of Hakam Singh, Resident of village Deon, Tehsil & District 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 H.F. Breed
cow of the complainant was insured with the opposite party Nos.1&2 vide Insurance Certificate No.64016 for IDV
of Rs.25,000/- for the period from 12.01.2009 to 11.01.2010. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party
Nos.1&2 have not supplied any terms and conditions of the policy to him till date. The said cow of the complainant
was insured with the opposite party Nos.1&2 after getting Health-cum-Evaluation Certificate from Veterinary
Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Deon. The doctor after examining the said cow, declared that the said animal is free
from any disease and is in good state of health and recommended for Cattle Insurance. The said cow was allotted Tag
No.64016 which had been attached in the ear of the said cow of the complainant. The said animal died in the month
of November, 2009 and its Post Mortem was conducted by the Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Deon
on 14.11.2009. Thereafter, 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 i.e. opposite party No.3 and all the documents
with claim Form were submitted by the complainant to the opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 lodged the
claim with the opposite party Nos.1&2 with all documents and all the documents are in the possession of the
opposite party Nos.1&2 but the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party Nos.1&2 vide
letter dated 12.07.2010, addressed to the opposite party No.3. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have never given any
intimation with regard to the repudiation to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint
for seeking directions of this Forum to pay IDV of Rs.25,000/- along with interest, cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their
separate written statements. The opposite party No.2 has pleaded that it has no branch office within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Forum. Merely by impleading the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry and Dairy, Bathinda does
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 before this Forum. The claim of the complainant has
rightly been repudiated as per Insurance Policy/Cover Note No.64016 effective from 12.01.2009 to 11.01.2010 and
as per exclusion clause of the policy, printed on the backside of the Insurance Cover Note, the complainant has failed
to take reasonable care of the insured cattle and the Insured cattle has died due to Trypanosomiosis on 14.11.2009
and the cattle was ill since 10-12 days before 29.10.2009 before death as such the complainant has failed to take
reasonable care of the insured cattle and as such the claim is not payable. The opposite party No.2 has further pleaded
that the terms and conditions of the cattle insurance are printed on the backside of every cover note and the
complainant has not intentionally produced the same before this Forum. Further, as per terms and conditions of the
policy, the intimation regarding the death of the insured animal has to be given within 24 hours but the complainant
has failed to give intimation regarding the same within stipulated period. The opposite party No.2 has further pleaded
that if this Forum comes to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay any compensation, then the
liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.25,000/- only being sum assured as per Health-cum-Evaluation
Certificate. On merits, the opposite party No.2 has further pleaded that the cattle of the complainant has died on
14.11.2009 and the animal was suffering from pre-existing disease i.e. 29.10.2009. Further, 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 pleaded the the cow of Malkiat Singh was insured with Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited for IDV of Rs.25,000/- for the period from 12.01.2009 to 11.01.2010. The Insured cow had died
on 14.11.2009 and the Post Mortem was conducted by Rural Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Deon
and all the documents i.e. Post Mortem Report, Death Certificate, Treatment Chart, Tag and Photograph were
deposited by the concerned 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 Company Limited through agent Sh. Sanjay
vide letter No.3771 dated 03.12.2009. 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
that the case of the cow of Malkiat Singh has been rejected. On this, the opposite party No.3 wrote a letter No.1281
dated 06.08.2010 and also sent a reminder letter No.1379 dated 20.09.2010 to Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
but no investigation of the said cow was done by the Company and no enquiry was conducted by any investigation
official and the case of the complainant was rejected without any reason and there was no response from Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. by the opposite party No.3.
4. The opposite party No.1 is deleted vide application 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.64016 from Reliance General Insurance Company Limited for his cow of H.F. breed after paying the
requisite premium. The said cow was insured for the IDV of Rs.25,000/- and a Tag No.64016 was allotted to the
said cow which was attached in the ear of the said cow. The validity of the said policy was from 12.01.2009 to
11.01.2010 and the cow had died on 14.11.2009.
8. The disputed facts between the parties are that the complainant has specifically submitted that he got Health-cum-
Evaluation Certificate from Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Deon to the effect that the animal is free from
any disease and is in good state of health and recommended for Cattle Insurance. The Insured cow had died and the
Post Mortem examination of the said cow was conducted by Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Deon on
14.11.2009 and due intimation 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. the opposite party Nos.1&2 but they have repudiated the claim of the complainant.
9. The opposite party No.2 has submitted that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated as per
Insurance Policy/Cover Note and as per exclusion clause of the policy printed at the back side of the Insurance
Policy/Cover Note, the insured has failed to take reasonable care of the insured cow and it had died on 14.11.2009
due to Trypanosomiosis as per record submitted by the complainant and the cattle was ill since 10-12 days before
29.10.2009 before death as such he failed to take reasonable care of the insured cattle and the claim is not payable.
The opposite party No.2 has further submitted that the intimation regarding the death of the Insured Animal has to be
given within 24 hours but the complainant has failed to give intimation regarding the same within stipulated period
as prescribed in the terms and conditions of the policy and has further submitted that if this Forum concludes that the
Insurance Company is liable to pay any compensation, then the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to
Rs.25,000/- only according to the Insurance Policy.
10. The opposite party No.3 has submitted that no investigation of the said cow was done either by the Insurance
Company or any investigation official and the case of the complainant was rejected without any reason.
11. The opposite party No.2 has submitted that the Insured cow had died on 14.11.2009. According to the Post
Mortem Report, the cattle was ill 12 days before 29.10.2009 as such the complainant has failed to take reasonable
care of the insured cattle. The validity of the above said Insurance Policy/Cover Note bearing No.64016 was from
12.01.2009 to 11.01.2010. The opposite party No.2 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that
the animal has been suffering from pre-existing disease i.e. before 29.10.2009 and the complainant use to take the
treatment of the insured cattle.
12. The second ground for not paying the claim of the complainant is that as per terms and conditions of the policy,
the intimation regarding the death of the insured cattle has to be given within 24 hours but no intimation has been
given by the complainant within prescribed period as such the claim is not payable. The legal objection taken by the
opposite party No.2 is that there is no branch office of the Insurance Company at Bathinda, thus this Forum has no
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.
13. The first ground taken by the opposite party No.2 that the animal was ill before 29.10.2009 and the complainant
has failed to take reasonable care, is baseless as the Insurance Policy/Cover Note was valid from 12.01.2009 to
11.01.2010 and the cattle had died on 14.11.2009 i.e. approximately after 10 months of purchase of the Insurance
Policy. Moreover, the opposite party No.2 has failed to place on file any evidence with regard to pre-existing disease
of the cattle and unable to prove that the complainant has failed to take reasonable care of the cattle.
14. The second ground for not paying the claim, that the intimation has not been sent within 24 hours by the
complainant to the Insurance Company, is also baseless as the complainant has sent an intimation to the opposite
party No.3 and in turn the opposite party No.3 has sent intimation to the opposite party No.2 to pay the claim of the
complainant alongwith all requisite documents.
15. The legal objection taken by the opposite party No.2 that the opposite party has no branch office at Bathinda and
this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, is not tenable as the intimation with regard
to the claim of the complainant, was sent by the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry and Diarying (Pashupalan) from
Bathinda vide letter No.3771 dated 03.12.2009 as such one of the opposite party is having its office at Bathinda.
Thus, this Forum has the jurisdiction as per Section 11(b) of the 'Act' to try and entertain the present complaint.
16. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party
No.2 has wrongly repudiated the lawful claim of the complainant as such 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/- as cost and
compensation 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.25,000/- 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.25,000/- 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
