IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 18th day of February, 2010. C.C.No.38 /08 Joby S/o. Mathew, Kulavadikara, : Complainant Kolakkad, Peravoor, Kannur Dt. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., : Opposite Party P.B.No.40, Bank Road, Kannur. O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.24,000/- with 12% interest from 14.08.07 towards insurance amount and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation together with cost of this proceedings. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are as follows: The Complainant is a dairy farmer. He purchased a High breed Holstein Freshen cow taking a loan from Indian Overseas Bank. The cow was insured with the Opposite Party for a period of 3 ½ years for a premium of Rs.3801/-. An identification tag was fixed on the ear of the cow, by the doctor. The cow was insured under cattle insurance scheme on 16.12.05. It was milking 24 litres of milk. On 14.03.07 at about 3.30 P.M. the cow was found bleeding when it urinated. It was immediately informed the doctor but the doctor started treatment the cow died by 10 P.M. Doctor conducted post mortem next day. The cause of death was edeptified as haemorture. The cow was six month pregnant at that time and the complainant had a loss of Rs.40,000/-. In the month of February 2007 the identification tag of the cow was lost somewhere in the pastural area or in the bathing tank outside the cow shed. The Complainant immediately informed the loss of the insurance identification mark to the Opposite Party. The office of the Opposite Party orally informed the Complainant that a new Id. Tag will be supplied. The Complainant was made to believe that a new tag would send to him by the Opposite Party. Therefore at the time of the death of the cow the Id.Tag of the cow was missing. From the time of the cow was brought by the Complainant it was under the medical supervision and regular monitoring by Dr.Shankerlingom of Government Veterinary Hospital, Kolakkad. After the death of the cow the Complainant approached the insurer with relevant documents and identification certificate issued by the doctor who gave medical care to the cow from the beginning. But the claim was denied for reasons for non-production of ear tag. Complainant issued legal notice and Opposite Party sent reply admitting the insurance but on the stand “No tag no claim”. They have also informed about the loss of the tag prior to the death of the cow. The act of the Opposite Party comes within the purview of deficiency of service. The Complainant sustained huge monitory loss due to the death of the cow. Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version denying the main allegation of the Complainant. The contention of the Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version denying the main allegation of the Complainant. The contention of the Opposite Party in brief is as follows: The Opposite Party had issued a policy to the Complainant under the cattle insurance scheme. But this Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount as compensation since the Complainant has not produced identification tag of the insured cow alleged to have died on 14.03.07. Unless and until the identification tag of the insured cow is not produced, this Opposite Party cannot be held liable to pay any insurance amount to the Complainant. The averments that there was internal bleeding on 14.03.07 and the cow died on 15.03.07 due to the same is all false. The averments that the cow was Rs.40,000/- are also false. Opposite Party believes that the insured cow was sold without the knowledge of the bank and without informing this Opposite Party. The Complainant is wilfully with the malafide intention to appropriate the insurance amount is enacting a drama of the death of the insured cow with the help of the veterinary doctor. The allegation of the loss of tag and request for fixing fresh tag and promise by Opposite Party to send a new tag etc. are false. Complainant neither informed the loss of tag nor requested to fix fresh tag. The identification made by the doctor is not a sufficient and proper identification. The certificate issued by the doctor is not proper and full proof as to identify the cow. Identification on the ground of colour and age is not acceptable. The policy specifically provided for the identification by tagging and in the instance of the death the insured should furnish the tag of the cow, failing which claim will not exist as per the special condition in the policy “No Tag No Claim”. As per the Cattle Insurance Policy condition if the cattle dies the death of the insured cattle should be intimated to the insurer immediately after the death and the post mortem on the carcass is to be done only in the presence of an officer of the insurer. Insured is bound to intimate the death before burying the carcass. But Complainant did not inform the death and conducting the post mortem. The death of the cow was informed only after 19 days from the date of death which amounts to gross violation of the policy conditions. The repudiation of claim was on genuine ground. Hence to dismiss the complainant. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. - Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, PW2, DW1, Exts.A1 to A4 and Ext.B1. Issue No.1 to 3 Admittedly the Complainant’s cow was insured with the Opposite Party for an amount of Rs.24,000/- under the cattle insurance scheme on 06.12.05. The main case of the Complainant is that the cow was died on 14.03.07. The claim repudiated by the Opposite Party on the ground of failure of production of identification tag of the dead cow. The Opposite Party contented that the policy specifically provided for the identification by tagging and in the instance of the death the insured should furnish the tag of the cow and if not claim will not exist as per the special condition of the policy “No Tag No Claim”. Opposite Party further contented that as per the cattle insurance policy condition of the cattle dies the death of the insured cattle should be intimated to the insurer immediately after the death and the post mortem on the carcass is to be done only in the presence of an officer of the insurer. And the Complainant informed the Opposite Party the death of the insured cattle only after 16 days from the date of death. Complainant filed proof affidavit in tune with the pleadings. In the cross examination Complainant deposed that the information regarding the death and post mortem had been given to Opposite Party at 9.45 A.M. next morning of the death. He deposed this "ÉÖá ÎøߺîÄá øÞdÄß 10 ÎÃßÏíAÞÃí. Éßçx ÆßÕØ¢ 10 ÎÃßÏíAÞÃí çÉÞØíxáçÎÞVG¢ æºÏñÄí. ¨ øIí µÞøcB{ᢠµOÈßæÏ 9.45 ÎÃßÏíAÞÃí ¥ùßÏßAáKÄí. ÉÖáÕßæÈ ÎøÕá æºÏîáçOÞW ÕßÕø¢ §X×áùXØí µOÈßæÏ çËÞY Õß{ߺîùßÏߺîÄÞÃí." The deposition of PW1 makes clear that the post mortem conducted in the absence of the Opposite Party. Except the interested testimony of PW1 Complainant there is nothing to show that Opposite Party has been informed the case of death of Complainant’s cow insured with the Opposite Party. The 7th condition of the policy specifically insist this: ”On the death of any animal hereby insured the insurer shall give immediate notice thereof by telegraph to the company at the office which has issued the policy and shall give the company an opportunity of inspecting the carcass until at least the expiration of 24 hours after such notice shall have been given to the Company. The insured shall also within fourteen days furnish to the Company such information accompanied by such veterinary certificates and satisfactory proof as to the death identity and value of the animal as the company may require.” Complainant did not seriously take the question of sending information to Opposite Party Insurance Company. A simple telegram should have been sufficient enough to solve this problem and it is difficult to understand what prevented the Complainant to do so. It cannot be ignored that it is the insurance Company who has to make payment of the insurance amount. Complainant has the liability to send the notice with proof of it, which he failed. There is nothing to show that such a notice has been sent to the Opposite Party. Even the complainant kept mum with respect to the sending of death information to the Opposite Party. He has explained something about the loss of identification tag but no single word so as to say the death information has given to Opposite Party without delay. Moreover Ext.A1 the policy specifically written at the face itself the specific condition “No Tag No Claim”. The clause specifically reads ; “Tag should be surrendered at the time of claim, otherwise it will be treated as no claim. In the event of death of animal/s covered under the policy, claim/s are surrendered to the Company. In the event of loss of ear tag/s it is the responsibility of the insured to give immediate notice to the Company and get the animal retagged”. Complainant could not produce the tag. His explanation was that in the month of February 2007 the identification tag of the cow had lost. Complainant immediately informed the loss to the Opposite Party and he was orally informed by the office that a new identification tag will be supplied. Nothing has been done thereafter to get the cow retagged. Except this explanation there is nothing to show that Complainant had made any attempt to get his cow retagged. There is no need of much explanation to come into conclusion that there is gross negligence on the part of Complainant which deserves no sympathy. The insurance company who is liable to pay the insurance amount is also entitled to get the information in right time and particulars especially identification tag so as to identify the insured cow. Complainant failed to discharge the contractual obligation on his part both in informing the death of the cow in time and of producing the ear tag of the dead cattle for settling the claim. Thus we are of opinion that the repudiation of claim cannot be considered as deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Complainant is not entitled for any remedy as prayed in the complaint. Thus the issues 1 to 3 are found against the Complainant. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- President Sd/- Member Sd/- Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Policy issued by OP A2.Valuatin certificate issued by Veterinary surgeon A3.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A4.Reply notice Exhibits for the opposite party B1.Printed format f policy condition of fettle insurance policy. Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.T.A.Sankarankutty /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur | 
