DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Davinder Singh son of Shri Nirmal Singh, resident of Village Kishanpura, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

              ---Complainant

Vs

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

[2]  K.M. Dastur, Re-Insurance Brokers Pvt. Limited, SCO No. 186-87, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Sunil K. Dixit, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

Opposite Party No.2 Ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.        The Complainant is a beneficiary of a Policy for his 40 cows insured with the Opposite Party No.1, valid from 17.01.2011 to 16.01.2012 (Annexure C-1). The Complainant has stated that the terms and conditions of the Policy had never been supplied to him. The Complainant has also stated that at the time of insurance, micro chops were inserted in the animals, and a health certificate was prepared by the authorized representative of the Opposite Party No.1 (Annexure C-2).

          Unfortunately, out of 40 cows, one cow died on 17.7.2011. Intimation was given to the Opposite Parties to verify the dead cow. A post mortem was conducted over the dead cow by the Government Veterinary Doctor of the area. All necessary documents were supplied by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2, who is the authorized service provider of Opposite Party No.1, for settlement of claim. However, the claim has been repudiated by the Opposite Party No.1 on 16.9.2011 (Annexure C-3), with the following observations: -

“During the investigation of the case, it is observed that the identification of the died animal does not tallies with the identification given in the health certificate at the time of insurance. As per health certificate, back two legs were mentioned as white, whereas in the photographs all the four legs were white. Since the description of the dead animal does not tallies with the insured cow, the claim is not payable.”

          As per the Complainant, the description given in the post mortem tallies with the description in the health certificate and the micro chip inserted in the cow, at the time of insurance, was recovered from the body of the dead cow, hence the repudiation of claim by the Opposite Party is unjustified and the claim needs to be satisfied. The Complainant has thus filed this complaint with a prayer that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- which is the actual value of the cow, along with interest @24% p.a., as also compensation and costs of litigation.  

2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 02.02.2012.

3.        The Opposite Party No.1 in reply has taken certain the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable as the terms and conditions of the policy have duly been supplied to K.M. Dastur Re-insurance Broker Pvt. Ltd., who had issued the cover note to the Complainant for onward submission to the Complainant and the Complainant is bound by the same. Also, intimation regarding death of the cattle was given by the Complainant to the said K.M. Dastur Re-insurance Broker Pvt. Ltd. and not to the answering Opposite Party. Further, the Opposite Party No.1 has stated that out of 75 cows in the farm of Complainant only 40 cows were insured. As per the report of the post mortem, the dead cow was not the one which was insured with the Opposite Party as the description of the dead cow did not tally with the insured cow as per the fitness certificate issued and produced before the answering Opposite Party at the time of taking the policy. The colour of all four legs of the dead cow was white as shown in the photograph, but as per the fitness certificate, only the back two legs were white. Hence, the dead cow was not covered under the insurance policy. Opposite Party No.1 has also emphasized that the Complainant had got the post mortem of the dead cow done in the absence of the Investigator and had taken out the micro chip No. 006D10EB9 from the cattle insured under the insurance policy and got it inserted in the different cow, which was not covered under the insurance policy, while forgetting that the description of the dead cow did not match with the description in the fitness certificate issued at the time of insurance. As no insured animal has died, the claim has rightly been repudiated by the answering Opposite Party.    

          On merits, Opposite Party No. 1 has admitted the issuance of the relevant policy. The objections taken in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

          Affidavit of Dr. Ramesh Kaul, Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Limited, has been placed on record in support of the contentions of the Opposite Party No.1.

4.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.        The Opposite Party No.1 has denied the insurance claim of the Complainant on the ground that the physical description of the dead animal does not tally with the fitness certificate issued at the time of insurance. The Complainant has asserted that both the fitness certificate and the description of the cow tally with each other and also the micro chip inserted in the animal at the time of issuing of insurance policy is the same, as the one recovered from the dead animal. As per the Opposite Party No.1 the micro-chip from the insured animal has been retrieved and placed in the dead animal. To our mind, this contention seems very vague and absurd. Implantation of a micro chip from one animal to another seems too far fetched. It is obvious that the cow which has died had the micro chip of the animal insured by the Opposite Party. Thus, the dead cow was definitely also insured. Hence, in our opinion, the claim should be allowed and the Complainant should be compensated with the amount due to him. 

7.             The complaint is accordingly allowed and the Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed to:-

[a]  Make payment to the Complainant as per the claim amount due in terms of the claim;

[b]  Pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation.

8.        This amount be paid by the Opposite Parties within 45 days of the receipt of this order, failing which Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as claimed by the Complainant, along with interest @9% per annum, from the date of this order, till the date of payment, besides the cost of litigation.  

9.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th October, 2012.                                             

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

 PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”