DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Khushwinder Singh S/o Sh.Randhir Singh, r/o Village Ramgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.104-106, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Senior D.M.

2.       K.M.Dastur, Re-insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.186-187, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     P.L.AHUJA                                                   PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.Sunil Dixit, Counsel for complainant.

                    Sh.R.K.Bashamboo, Counsel for OP No.1.

                    OP No.2 already exparte.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Khushwinder Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against The New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Anr. (OPs), alleging that he insured his cows with OP No.1 vide Policy No.35020047100400200026 (copy of which is Annexure C-1). The validity of the policy was from 17.01.2011 to 16.01.2014. The Veterinary Health Certificate (copy of which is Annexure C-2) was also enclosed. Out of the insured cows, one cow bearing electronic microchip No. 956000001702809 died on 23.06.2011. An intimation was given to the OPs to verify the dead cow and the postmortem was conducted over the dead cow by the Govt. Veterinary Doctor of the area. As per the case of the complainant, he supplied all the necessary documents to OP No.2, who is the authorized service provider of OP No.1 for settlement of the claim. However, vide letter dated 16.09.2011 (copy of which is Annexure C-3), OP No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant. As per the rejection letter of OP No.1, the identification of the dead animal did not tally with the identification given in the health certificate given at the time of insurance and as per health certificate, back two legs were white, whereas, in the photographs one foreleg was also white. The other objection taken by OP No.1 was that the animal was not shown to the investigator. It has been contended that the objections of the OPs are incorrect because the investigator reached the spot at 4.00 PM and the post-mortem was got conducted at 4.30 PM on that very day. The description given in the post-mortem report totally tallies with the description in the health certificate and the animal was shown to the investigator. It has also been contended that electronic chip bearing No. 956000001702809 was recovered from the body of dead cow. The complainant served a legal notice dated 23.09.2011 (copy of which is Annexure C-4). The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant has made a prayer for direction to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- actual total value of the cow alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to him.

2.                OP No.2 did not appear despite service of notice and it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 16.01.2012.

3.                OP No.1 in its written reply has admitted the issuance of policy of insurance on the basis of Veterinary Health Certificate. It has been stated that OP No.2 on 24.06.2011 informed through e-mail – Annexure R-1 to the Senior Divisional Manager of OP No.1 that one of the cattle of the insured had expired. Thereafter, the company appointed Dr.N.K.Vohra as Investigator, who contacted the insured on telephone and requested him to keep the dead cow at the farm till his arrival. The investigator reached the farm house at about 4.00 PM and it was informed to him that cow had died on 23.06.2011 at 5.00 PM. It has been averred that the investigator was not shown the dead cow/carcass. It was found by the investigator that the insured was having 80 cows at that time and only 50 cows out of them were insured. The investigator took photographs and also recorded the statement of insured/owner. It has been contended that the insured did not cooperate with the investigator by not producing the carcass inspite of his specific requests. It was pointed out by the investigator that as per the claim form, the animal was purchased on 20.03.2011, whereas, the animals were insured on 17.01.2011. The insured had failed to produce any treatment record by the doctor, when the animal fell sick on 22.06.2011. He also pointed out that identity of the cow differed.  The company repudiated the claim on the basis of the said report (copy of which is Annexure R-2). It has been averred that since it was proved beyond doubt that the animal died was not insured, therefore, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 16.9.2011 (copy of which is Annexure C-3). Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

3-A.            In his rejoinder, the complainant has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. It has been stated that the insertion of microchip is not disputed by OP No.1 and the same was handed over to the OPs, as is clear from Annexures R-2 & R-3.

3-B.             The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                We have appraised the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.

5.                It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant Sh.Khushwinder Singh got insured his 10 cows with OP No.1 through Cattle Insurance Policy – Annexure   C-1 on 17.01.2011 and its validity was from 17.01.2011 to 16.01.2014. The sum insured was Rs.5 lacs for 10 animals. The complainant made payment of an amount of Rs.56,250/-  towards insurance. The Veterinary Health Certificate – Annexure C-2 shows that the cow, which allegedly died, was bearing microchip No.956000001702809 and its colour was black/white. The post-mortem of the dead animal was conducted by Dr.R.K.Yadav vide Postmortem Certificate – Annexure R-7. The complainant filed a claim form – Annexure  R-6 with OP No.1 for getting insurance amount. Dr.N.K.Vohra, Investigator submitted an investigation report – Annexure R-2, on the basis of which, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 16.09.2011 – Annexure C-3. The only material question for determination in this case is whether the identity of the dead animal tallies with the identity described in the Veterinary Health Certificate – Annexure C-2, given at the time of insurance.

6.                In has been contended by the learned Counsel for OP No.1 that after receipt of the information of the death of the animal, Dr.N.K.Vohra, Investigator had contacted the insured on telephone and asked him to keep the dead cow at the farm but the insured did not show the dead cow/carcass to him. The learned Counsel for OP No.1 has contended that the insurance policy, in question, was purchased on 17.01.2011 but as per the claim form – Annexure  R-6 the date of purchase of the disputed animal was 20.03.2011. He has also argued that the insured had failed to produce any treatment record by the doctor, when the animal fell sick on 22.06.2011. The learned Counsel for OP No.1 has further argued that the Veterinary Health Certificate – Annexure C-2 shows that both back legs of the animal were white, while in the photographs attached, three legs of the animal were white. The learned Counsel for OP No.1 has contended that in fact the animal, which had died was purchased afterwards and microchip tag of some other animal was produced by the insured before the investigator. The learned Counsel for OP No.1 has vehemently argued that the facts mentioned above put a doubt on the genuineness of the claim of the complainant, therefore, it was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 16.09.2011 – Annexure C-3.

7.                We have carefully considered the above arguments of the learned Counsel for OP No.1. It is significant to note that the complainant has specifically alleged in para No.6 of the complaint that the description given in the post-mortem and in the health certificate at Serial No.2 totally tallies, moreover, the electronic chip bearing No.956000001702809 was recovered from the body of dead cow. The specific allegation of the complainant regarding recovery of electronic chip from the body of dead cow has not been specifically denied in the written reply of OP No.1. Furthermore, the complainant has pleaded in his rejoinder that the microchip was recovered from the body of dead animal, which was inserted at the time of insurance. It has also been asserted that the insertion of the microchip is not disputed by OP No.1 and the same was handed over to the OPs, as per Annexure R-2 & R-3. We find that the copy of the post-mortem report – Annexure R-7 clearly shows that the animal whose post-mortem was conducted by Dr.R.K.Yadav was bearing microchip No.956000001702809. We feel that when the  microchip No.956000001702809 was inserted in the ear of the insured cow as per health certificate – Annexure  C-2, the same is a vital piece of evidence to prove the identity of the disputed cow. There is no such plea in the written statement of OP No.1 that the insured produced ear tag of some other animal before the investigator. The contention that it was ear tag of some other animal, cannot be accepted because the microchip, in question, was inserted in the ear of the cow, whose description is given at Serial No.2 at Veterinary Health Certificate – Annexure C-2. Further Veterinary Health Certificate – Annexure C-2 shows the colour of insured cow to be black/white and the photographs - Annexures R-8 to R-12 also show the colour to be black/white. Apart from it, as per Veterinary Health Certificate, the identification mark of the insured cow is shown to be Head Star and even in the post-mortem report – Annexure R-7 Head Star is shown to be the identification mark of the cow, whose post-mortem examination was conducted. It is also pertinent that as per particulars of identification in Veterinary Health Certificate – Annexure C-2, the cow is shown to be having white udder and even in the post-mortem report – Annexure R-7, one of the identification marks is shown to be white udder. If there is some omission in the Veterinary Health Certificate – Annexure C-2 about the colour of the third leg of the animal that can be ignored in view of the fact that the microchip No. 956000001702809 was recovered from the body of dead animal. In regard to the date of purchase of the animal mentioned as 20.3.2011 in the claim form – Annexure R-6, it is quite probable that the same was the result of inadvertence because in all other columns the year was indicated as 11 (2011). Otherwise also, the claim could not be rejected on the ground of this mistake only.

8.                As far as the contention of the learned Counsel for OP No.1 that the investigator was not shown the dead cow is concerned, the investigator reached the farm house at about 4.00 PM and the post-mortem report – Annexure R-7 shows that the post-mortem was conducted on the dead cow at 4.30 PM on 24.06.2011. The complainant has filed an affidavit to this effect that the animal was shown to the investigator and there are many witnesses to this effect. Even if, it is assumed that the dead animal was not shown to the investigator, we feel that this is not such an infirmity, which could create a doubt regarding the identification of the insured animal. The investigator could also visit the place where the post-mortem was conducted and see the dead animal but he omitted to do so. To cap it all, the copy of the insurance policy – Annexure R-4 nowhere shows that the complainant was bound to show the dead body of the animal and treatment record of the animal to the investigator. As per special conditions in the Cattle Insurance Policy – Annexure R-4 tag should be surrendered at the time of claim, otherwise it will be treated as no claim. In the event of death of Cattle covered under the policy, claim/s shall not be entertained unless the ear tag/s are surrendered to the Company.   Thus, a perusal of the special conditions itself shows that the most material requirement for getting the death claim of a cattle is the ear tag. In this case, the ear tag/microchip No. 956000001702809 was handed over by the insured to the investigator. So after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, we feel that the identity of the dead animal is duly connected with the animal, which was insured vide Cattle Insurance Policy – Annexure   C-1/Annexure R-4. We are of the opinion that repudiation of the claim of the complainant is a clear case of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP No.1.

9.                For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed. OP No.1 is directed  :-

i)                 To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards value of the cow along with interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant from the date of death of the cow upto the date of realization.

ii)                To pay an amount of Rs.7500/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation expenses.

10.              This order shall be complied with by OP No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP No.1 shall be liable to make payment of the awarded amount to the complainant along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of death of the cow upto the date of realization.

11.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.