Punjab

Sangrur

CC/520/2017

Daljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Inderpal Singh Dhandly

13 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    520

                                                Instituted on:      06.10.2017

                                                Decided on:       13.04.2018

 

Daljit Singh son of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, R/O Village Mangwal (Ganga Singh Wala), Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, S.C.O. 109-110-111, Surendera Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

2.             The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Railway Chowk/LIC Office, Sangrur through its  Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Inderpal Singh Dhandly, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Shri Daljit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his 10 cows from the OPs vide policy number CHD-C-550362 for Rs.50,000/- each for the period from 20.2.2016 to 19.2.2017.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, one cow having chip number 990000000 371723 died on 19.12.2016 and as such the complainant intimated the OPs about the death of the cow and the Ops appointed Dr. Ram Kumar to survey/investigate the claim and to prepare the report after conducting the survey and examining the dead body of the cow and therafter the doctor prepared the report and mentioned in his report that he found chip number 990000000 371723. It is further averred that Dr. Ram Kumar removed the chip from the cow in the presence of the witnesses, namely Gurpreet Singh, Gurjit Singh and Sarpanch Jagtar Singh Gram Panchayat Ganga Singh Wala.  It is further averred that the post-mortem on the dead cow was also conducted at Veterinary Hospital, but the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 3.8.2017 on the ground that there was no microchip found at the time of post mortem of the dead animal, which is said to be wrong and illegal. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the cow till realisation and further complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is abuse of process of law and is absolutely false, frivolous and vexatious, that the complaint is not tenable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got insured his ten cows in question. It is also admitted that the deceased cow of the complainant died on 19.12.2016 and thereafter as alleged the post mortem of the cow was done by Veterinary doctor of Civil Hospital Balian, Sangrur.  Thereafter the OPs appointed Er. Bhupesh Bhardwaj Sangrur to complete the survey conducted by late Dr. Ram Kumar on 19.12.2016 and the said surveyor submitted his report dated 10.6.2017 and on perusal of the investigation report and documents supported in the report of Er. Bhupesh Bhardwaj, it was found that no microchip was found in the dead animal as reported in the post-mortem report of the dead animal, meaning thereby the dead animal was not genuine and was not insured with the OPs.  It is further stated that after receiving the report, a letter was sent to the complainant on 3.8.2017 asking him to send his comments, but no explanation was given by the complainant to the OPs, as such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 4.9.2017. It is further denied that Dr. Ram Kumar prepared the report and it is denied that chip in question or chip number was mentioned in the said report.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 copies of the documents and affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his 10 cows in question from the OPs by paying the requisite premium for the period from 20.2.2016 to 19.2.2017 and the OPs issued cover note bearing number 550362, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-5 is further supported by the Vety Health Certificate Ex.C-6 and further it shows that microchip number 99000000371723 was also inserted in the insured cow mentioned at serial number 3.  Ex.C-7 is the copy of cattle claim brief which is on the letter head of Dr. Ram Kumar, investigator which clearly reveals that micro chip bearing number 99000000371723 was found along with the dead cow.  We have further perused the copy of post-mortem report of the dead cow dated 20.12.2016 Ex.C-8 conducted by Dr. Akashdeep Garg, but it is worth mentioning here that there is nothing mentioned about the microchip whether the same was there in the dead cow or not.  On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that Dr. Akashdeep Garg has mentioned in the post-mortem report that there was no such microchip, but it is silent on the point whether it was there or not.  We further not agree with the survey report of Er. Bhupesh Bhardwaj, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-6 as it is dated 13.6.2017, whereas the cow died on 19.12.2016 meaning thereby the survey report was submitted by Er. Bhpesh Bhardwaj after a period of about six months, whereas the case of the complainant is that Dr. Ram Kumar conducted the survey and he further removed the microchip in question at the time of survey of the dead cow.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the report was not immediately submitted by the surveyor and why he took a period of six months for submitting the report to the OPs, as such, we feel there is some hanky panky in the matter and the OPs got prepared the report after a long period from the surveyor.  It is also the case of the OPs that initially survey was done by Dr. Ram Kumar and further the report was completed by Er. Bhupesh Bhardwaj.  We may mention that it can be there that the complainant had submitted the microchip to Dr. Ram Kumar and he may or may not mentioned about the same in the initial report.  No such initial report of Dr. Ram Kumar has been produced by the OPs on record and there is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why they withheld the initial report of Dr. Ram Kumar.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the insured cow of the complainant bearing chip number 99000000371723 had died and the Ops have wrongly and illegally repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant.

 

7.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- being the insurance claim on account of death of the insured cow in question along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 06.10.2017 till realisation.  We further direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 13, 2018.                                                  

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                             Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member