SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)<br /> <br /> The complainant purchased a cow for Rs.15,000/- by availing of a bank loan and the same was insured with the opposite party. After one year the ear tag was lost and the fact was intimated to the doctor; but due to health verification programme during that time the animal could not be retagged on that day. During the pendency of the policy, the cow fell down and showed symptoms of certain disease. Immediately the complainant went to the Parathodu Veterinary Surgeon and the cow was treated, but the illnes was not cured. The cow died due to illness. Intimation was given to the opposite party. The postmortum was conducted by the Govt.Vety.Surgeon, Parathodu. A claim was made to the opposite party along with relevant documents. But the opposite party was repudiated the claim for the reason that the ear tag was not produced. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for a direction to settle the claim on payment of compensation.<br /> <br /> 2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, the insurance is admitted. The allegation that the complainant had not informed about the lost of the ear tag. The complainant was not ready to surrender the ear tag of the dead animal before the company and in such case as per condition No.6 of the policy no claim is recoverable. The claim was repudiated only on valid ground and the complainant is not entitled to get any amount by way of compensation. <br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 4.The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P8 on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 and R2 on the side of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- It is not under dispute that the cow in question was insured and that during the subsistence of the policy it died. Originally an ear tag was given. Ext.P7 is the copy of the policy which contains the original ear tag No. The ear tag was lost and the animal was not again retagged. The fact was intimated to the Govt.Vererinay doctor and the complainant visited the office of the opposite party. The complainant has produced Ext.P2 which is copy of a letter dated 15/09/2006 issued by the Veterinary Surgeon to the opposite party stating that the animal was without ear tag at the time of death. Also stating that he himself examined and insured the animal on 29/12/2005 and identified the animal as one and the same during the treatment and postmortum. On the face of this letter regarding the insurance is that the insurance is giving as per the inspection certificate of the doctor and the records will be sent to them as per a master policy. As per that all the papers regarding the claim are entrusted by the party to the doctor and it is that the doctor who sends the letter to the company. So the discrepency regarding the ear tag cannot be raised as a defence by the opposite party and the rejection of the claim on that ground is not sustainable. Having regard to these matters the serious deficiency on the part of the opposite party, the opposite party has to compensate the complainant for the death of the insured animal. So the opposite party is liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant. In the circumstances, the opposite party is liable to pay the cost of this petition which we would fix at Rs.1,500/- and also 12% interest of the insured amount from 14.09.2006 the date of the death of the insured animal.<br /> <br /> In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- with 12% interest from 14.09.2006 and Rs.1,500/- as costs of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% further interest from the date of default.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of May, 2008<br /> <br />