Haryana

Karnal

CC/9/2018

Khazani Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

D.S. Chauhan

18 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.09 of 2018

                                                         Date of instt. 09.01.2018

                                                         Date of decision:18.10.2018

 

Khazani Devi wife of Shri Tejbir Singh resident of village Birchpur, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch office: Sabharwal Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                        ……opposite party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr.Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present  Shri D.S.Kajal Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Narinder Chaudhary Advocate for OP.

 

(Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant was owner of a Black & White Cow of H.F. Cross Breed, 8 years old having market value more than Rs.50,000/-. The said cow was insured with OP under GOI scheme (animal insurance), vide policy no.1068089 (Tag no.160000/108615). In the month of June 2017 the cow fell ill and suffering from Trypano somiasis and was got treated through Veterinary Surgeon, G.V.H. Staundi, District Karnal on 06.06.2017 and 09.06.2017 but the cow could not survive of the ill and died on 09.06.2017. The postmortem of the cow was conducted on 09.06.2017 vide PMR no.55709. The necessary information was supplied to the OP regarding illness and death of the cow. Complainant approached the OP alongwith relevant documents and submitted her claim for compensation. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP so many times and requested the OP to release the claim of insure but OP always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false and frivolous ground. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; deficiency in service; jurisdiction and concealment of facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the competent authority has rightly repudiated the claim as ‘No Claim’ as the investigation conducted by the surveyor on behalf of the company do not match with the Health Report as is clearly evident in the photographs taken by the investigator. The colour of the cow was white having stips on her body whereas as per health certificate colour of cow is mentioned black and white and it finds also mentioned in the health certificate that the cow was Dhorned whereas during the course of investigation it was found that the cow was having small horns. As such the claim had rightly been repudiated. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 4.5.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of P.L. Sharma Investigator Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 26.09.2018.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             Admittedly, cow of the complainant was insured by the OP, vide policy no.1068089. As per the claim of the complainant, the cow was insured for Rs.50,000/-but as per health certificate Ex. C7 the market value of the cow is Rs. 40,000/-. The said cow died on 09.06.2017 and on the same day Post Mortem was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon of village Staundi, Karnal. Claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated on the ground  that “ Small horns are clearly seen in the photographs taken by the investigator whereas as per Health Certificate cow was Dehorned and the colour of the cow was white having black stripes on her body, whereas as per health certificate colour of cow is mentioned black and white. The copy of repudiation letter is Ex.OP3.During the course of hearing counsel for OP has shows the photographs of the cow. The photographs appear to be doubtful as not tally with post mortem report as well as surveyor report. Hence this plea of OP is not acceptable.

7.             The report of the investigator Ex.OP4 is a material document, which shows that the insured cow was having tag no. 160000/108615. For identification of the insured animal, ear tag is affixed. The copy of post mortem report Ex.C8 makes it quite clear that the Veterinary Surgeon conducted post mortem on the dead body of the cow on the same day, having tag no. 160000/108615. Neither there is any allegation nor evidence of the OP that the ear tag was tampered with in any manner. The OP alleged that the as per health insurance certificate colour of cow is mentioned black and white and it finds also mentioned in the health certificate that the cow was Dehorned whereas as per the surveyor report cow was having small horns. On perusal of insurance policy Ex. C4 which was prepared at the time of insurance and also perusal of post mortem report Ex. C8 the colour of cow was mentioned as Black & White and Horns are mentioned as Dehorned. While there may always be a possibility of growth of horns with in period of insurance policy and death of the cow as show in photograph taken by investigator. Therefore, insurance policy and post mortem report has appeared same. Hence the complainant cannot be made to suffer on that account.  The claim of the complainant could not be repudiated merely on the ground that cow was having white strips Dehorned.  Under such circumstances, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the OP was neither legal nor justified and the same amounted to deficiency in service.

8.             As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.40,000/- as insured amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:18.10.2018

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member