Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

RBT/CC/967/2018

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Suresh Kumar

02 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                   RBT/CC/967/2018

                                                                    Complaint No.967 of 2018

                                                                   Date of Institution: 14.09.2018

                                                                   Date of Decision:02.12.2021

 

Sukhwinder Singh S/o Sh. Harnek Singh R/o Village Nagla, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali.         

                                                                             ………....Complainant

                                                Versusf

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., First Floor, HDFC Bank Chandigarh Road, Kurali, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali through its Branch Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.109-110-111, Sec 17 D, Chandigarh through its Chief Regional Manager.
3. The Oriental Insurance Coo. Ltd. (Regd. & Head Office) A-25/27,Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 through its General Manager.

…………Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 to 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Quorum

Sh. Pushvinder Singh, President

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

 

Present: Sh. Suresh Kumar, Adv, Counsel for the COMPLAINANT.

   Sh. Amit Kundra, Adv,   Counsel for the Opposite party

OrderBy

Pushvinder Singh, President

 

1.                The present complaint was filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the Complainant under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-   

2.                  That in the year 2015, the complainant after getting the loan from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Dakoli purchased 10 cows in the year 2015 for running of the milk diary. On 05.03.2015 complainant purchased the insurance policy no.231495/47/2015/27 starting from 06.03.2015 to midnight of 05.03.2018 from the Company Limited i.e. Ops through its agent/broker No.BC0000000985 OBC Kharar, Mohali, Punjab, 160061 and the amount for insurance of Rs.2880/- per cow was paid to the Ops for the insurance. The amount of sum insured premium per cow was 60,000/- on the death of the cow. The insurance was done by the OP after checking all the required formalities. All the cows were healthy at that time.

3.                On 25.10.2016 one cow having Ear Tag/Chip No.900108001474513 died due to the disease name protozoan infection as mentioned in the post mortem report and its claim was lodged with the Ops. The Ops did not pay claim of the complainant as claimed by him. The amount of assured is also the same as Rs.60,000/-.With no option left, the complainant served the legal notice dated 19.02.2018 through his counsel vide registered post dated 20.02.2018 to the Ops claiming thereby balance amount for three cows Rs.44,000/- (Rs.10,000+18,000+16,000=44,000/-) and of the full insured amount of Rs.60,000/- against the cow having Ear Tag/Chip No. 900108001474513 was died on 25.10.2016 along with interest @12% P.A. within a period of 15 days from the receipt of this notice but neither the Ops replied to the legal notice nor they paid the claim of the complaint. The complainant has sought direction to the Ops to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- against claim of Rs.60,000/- against the claim of cow along with interest @10% P.A. and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. The Ops have denied all other allegations of complainant and have requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.                The Ops has contested the case by filing written version that the claim filed by the complainant is not only misleading but has been filed over reach the law and the cruelty inflicted upon the insured animal is writ large in the unfolding of events. In fact the insured should be tried under the relevant section of the Act known as “Cruelty Against Animal”. In the instant case, the post-mortem report has clearly reflected in the report that the body condition of the cow was extremely weak and anaemic. Even investigations carried out by the answering respondent showed that the skin of the dead animal was hidebound and full of bedsores. There was not only negligence in the proper upkeep of animal, but naked cruelty perpetrated against a living creature. Needless to stress that the policy issued by the insurer also envisages that no claim would be payable in the event of death due to malicious wilful or negligence act on the part of the insured and the animal became very weak and anaemic due to palpable neglect. The claim was not paid as the insured was found deficient in the discharge of his obligation towards the insured animal and the insurer.

5.                In evidence the complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW-1 and has also produced copy of insurance policy as Ex.C-1 copy of cattle insurance claim deterring certificate as Ex.C-2 along with copy of post-mortem report copy of legal notice as Ex.C-3. On the other hand R.L. Baleem, Manager has furnished his affidavit Ex.OP-1 and also produced copy of registered letter dated 19.12.2016 as Ex.OP-1 dated 04.01.2017 as Ex.OP-2 and dated 20.01.2017 as Ex.OP-3 and copy of Investigation Report as Ex.OP-3 (repeatedly numbered).

6.       The points of determination in the present complaint are that:

1. Whether the claimant is entitled to the insurance claim for the death of his cow?
2. Whether the cow of the complainant died due to the reason of neglect?

7.         The complainant has filed present complaint for giving direction to the Ops to making payment of Insurance Claim due to death of his cow as the claim has been repudiated by the Ops. It is an admitted fact that the cow of the complainant was insured with the Ops for insured sum of Rs.60,000/-. It is also admitted that cow died on 25.10.2016 and then the complainant sought a claim from the Ops but no claim was paid by the Ops and in this regard the Ops got conducted an investigation from their own Investigator who gave Exhibit copy of which Ex. OP-3 and as per his opinion the death claim set off by the complainant is unjustified ingenuine and unsustainable.

8.                The complaint has produced copy of post-mortem report of the cow and from the perusal of the same we find that the cause of death of cow is mentioned as due to shock, due to Anaemia and Toxaemia due to some protozoan infection. In the post-mortem report it has also been mentioned that the cow was ill for the one or two days prior to death however her body condition was weak. But there was no wound or injury seen by the doctor concerned. The claim of complainant has been repudiated by the Ops stating that his cow suffered illness because of lack of due care and cow became very weak and anaemic due to palpable neglect but we find that except the investigation report of their own Investigator, the Ops have failed to produce any other evidence to show that the cow was neglected by the complainant himself. Otherwise as per post-mortem report the cow was ill and was suffering from protozoan infection and due to said infection she was weak and accordingly in the absence of any specific evidence it cannot be presumed that the cow was neglected by the complainant himself. When the cow was insured with the OPs then they must pay the claim as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Company to the complainant. The cow died on 25.10.2016 but the claim was not given by the Ops so the complainant is also entitled for the interest and the reasonable rate of interest @8% P.A and the claimant is also entitled for amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation expense.

9.                In view of our aforementioned discussion the complaint is allowed and the Ops are directed to pay the insurance claim of the cow of complainant having ear ring/Chip No.900108001474513 as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the Ops are also directed to pay the interest @8% P.A. with effect from 25.12.2016 (two months time left for the normal processing of the claim) till date of payment. OPs are also directed to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and towards litigation expenses to the claimant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise the complainant shall have right to recover the amount from the Ops through the process of law. Free certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant and copy be sent to the Ops through registered post as per rules. The file be return back to the District Consumer Commission, Mohali for consignment.

 

 

 

 

Announced:- 02.12.2021                                                                  

           RDS                                         

                                                                                       

 

(Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                             President

                            

                                                                                                                                                                            

 

(Manjit Singh Bhinder)

                                                                                      Member