BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No: 240/2003 Filed on 13/6/2003

Dated: 30..09..2010

Complainant:

P. Babu, Anil Bhavan, Moliyoorkkonam, Kattakkada.

(By Adv. P. Vasudeva Kurup)

Opposite parties:

1. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hospital Junction, Neyyattinkara.

    

2. The Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sharanya, Hospital Road, P.B.No.1181, Kochi – 682 011.

    

(By Adv. R. Jagadishkumar)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 29..10..2005 the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 04..08..2010, the Forum on 30..09..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

The grievance of the complainant is as follows: As per Policy certificate No. 158995 dated 19/09/2001 issued by the 1^st opposite party, the complainant had insured two milch cows on payment of Rs.1980/- towards premium under the scheme of 'Kamadhenu Insurance'. The sum assured for each cow was Rs.15,000/-. The valid period of insurance as per the policy of insurance issued by the opposite party was three years from 19/9/2001. The tag numbers originally allotted to the cows were 30551 and 30554. The original tags were subsequently changed and re-tagged and the new numbers allotted by the 1^st opposite party were 43181 and 43190 respectively. The change of the number was noted in the policy certificate and attested by the 1^st opposite party. While so one of the cows – the cow bearing re-tag No.43190 died and the carcass was burried after conducting post mortem. The claim was reported on 6/11/2002 and the same was settled by the 1^st opposite party limiting the claim amount as Rs. 10,000/-. On 21/3/2003, the other cow bearing tag No. 43181 also died and the carcass was burried after conducting post mortem by Dr. P.M. Prasad, Senior Veterinary Surgeon of the Government Veterinary Hospital, Kattakada. The death of the cow was reported to the 1^st opposite party and requested for the issuance of claim forms. But inspite of several visits to the office of the 1^st opposite party by the complainant himself and his relatives the 1^st opposite party was reluctant to issue the claim forms. Even without the issuance of the claim forms by the opposite party and the complainant preferring his claim, the 1^st opposite party has repudiated his claim by letter dated 22/5/2003. The reason stated by the opposite party is that the policy has expired before 21/3/2003, the date of death of the cow. With a view to strengthening their contention they have tried to build up a story to the effect that the opposite party have already written to the complainant to the effect that the coverage of all the four animals owned by the complainant would expire on 29/12/2002. The repudiation of the death claim even before receipt of the claim forms is illegal, unjust and arbitrary. Hence this complaint.

2. The opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party is liable to indemnify the complainant subject to the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. The petition has been filed by the complainant concealing true facts and thereby misleading the Forum and knock off money which is not legally due to him. It is true that a 'Kamadhenu Insurance policy' was issued to the complainant, in respect of the cow bearing Tag No.43181. The coverage for the animal was in respect of the period which is to expire on 29/12/2002. The complainant knows of the true fact also. The cow bearing Tag No. 43181 died on 21/3/2003 and hence on the date of death of the cow, there was no valid policy. That the opposite party had advised the complainant to renew the policy before 29/12/2002, but no action was taken by him in this regard. The complainant is well aware of this aspect also and concealing this aspect, the present complaint is filed. Since there is no valid policy on the date of death of the cow, the opposite party is not legally liable to indemnify the complainant nor anybody else. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, since the repudiation done is as per the prevailing law. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

Both parties have filed affidavits. Exts. P1 to P5 were marked on the part of the complainant. No documents were marked on the part of the opposite parties though one policy copy is on record.

3. The points for consideration are:

1. Whether the act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?

4. Points (i) & (ii) : As per the complaint the cow bearing Tag No.43181 died on 21/3/2003 and the death was reported to the 1^st opposite party and the complainant had requested for the claim forms. The main allegation in the complaint is that even without the issuance of the claim form by the opposite party and even before preferring the claim by the complainant, the 1^st opposite party has repudiated his claim stating that the policy has expired before the date of death of the cow. At this juncture, the policy is to be looked into. Ext. P1 issued to the complainant reveals that the period of insurance is for 3 years from 19/9/2001. Besides the same it has been written that 'to 29/12/2002'. The said entries are read together as 'period of insurance is 3 years from 19/9/2001 to 29/12/2002' which has no logic or sensible reasoning for the same. The printed version states period of insurance as 3 years. Furthermore the complainant has produced Ext. P5, the copy of the schedule attached to Kamadhenu Insurance Policy No.1390/99. The original of Ext. P5 has also been produced. As per the same, the policy in dispute re-tag No.43181 is valid from 19/9/2001 to 18/9/2004. Ext. P5 bears the signature and seal of the opposite party.

5. The opposite party has admitted that the cow bearing Tag No. 43181 died on 21/3/2003. The opposite party has further contended that the opposite party had advised the complainant to renew the policy before 29/12/2002 but no action was taken. If at all the said contention of the opposite party is to be admitted, then why the opposite party has not corrected the period of cover in Ext. P5 is not established. The opposite party has entered the re-tag number and signed the same. But the period of cover still remains the same ie., from 19/9/2001 to 18/9/2004. Furthermore, as per Ext. P1, the re-tag No.43181 has been entered and signed. The entry regarding period of insurance 3 years from 19/9/2001 which has been written as 29/12/2002 is seen struck off carelessly. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence to contradict the same or they have failed to establish their contention that the policy expired before the death of the cow. Ext. P1 is the certificate of insurance and not a scrap of paper. The Insurance Company has a duty to check the entries made in the same and check whether the entries are made properly or not. The slipshod manner of the opposite party in making the entries in the certificate of insurance without any logic or conscience cannot be justified which has caused the complainant sufferings and loss. The opposite parties cannot get away with its responsibility to issue the proper certificate.

6. In the above circumstance we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint and the act of the opposite parties in not entertaining the claim of the complainant definitely amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant has to be compensated.

 

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay the complainant the death claim of the cow along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,500/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day September, 2010.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.

O.P.No. 240/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of certificate of Insurance – Kamadhenu Insurance Scheme

P2 : Copy of receipt dated 19/09/2001

P3 : Copy of letter dated 22/05/2003

P4 : " Death certificate

P5 : " the schedule attached to Kamadhenu Insurance Policy No. 1390/99.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT