DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.399 of 09-08-2011
Decided on 10-02-2012
Leela Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of Sh. Bhagat Ram, Resident of village Jassi Pau Wali, Tehsil & Distt.
Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Reliance Office, Prime Time, SCO 5, Ahta Pritam Singh Sidhu, Amrik
Singh Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Incharge. (Deleted)
The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office: SCO 212, 213, 214, Ist Floor, Sector 34,
Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.
Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Bhagu Road, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Varun Gupta/Sh.Pritam Singh, counsels for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. Sunder Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.2
Sh. Dhan Singh, A.R. of opposite party No.3
Opposite party No.1 deleted
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the Murrah
Breed buffalo of the complainant was insured with the opposite party No.2 vide Insurance Certificate No.101701 for
the period from 08.01.2009 to 07.01.2010 for IDV Rs.48,000/-. The complainant has alleged that no terms and
conditions of the policy were supplied to her by the opposite party Nos.1&2. The said buffalo of the complainant
was insured with the opposite party No.2 after getting the Health cum Evaluation Certificate issued by Veterinary
Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Jassi Pau Wali. The doctor after examining the said buffalo, declared that the said
buffalo is free from any disease and is in good health and recommended for Cattle Insurance. The said buffalo was
allotted the Tag No.R-101701 which had been attached in the ear of the said buffalo. The above said buffalo of the
complainant died and the post mortem was conducted by the Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Jassi Pau
Wali. Thereafter, the due intimation was sent to the opposite party Nos.1&2 for the payment of the claim through the
opposite party No.3 and all the documents with claim Form and Tag were submitted by the complainant to the
opposite party No.3 for forwarding her claim to the opposite party Nos.1&2. The opposite party No.3 lodged the
claim with the opposite party Nos.1&2 with all the documents and Tag. The claim of the complainant has been
repudiated by the opposite party Nos.1&2 vide letter dated 12.07.2010, addressed to the opposite party No.3. The
opposite party Nos.1&2 have never given any intimated with regard to the repudiation of the claim of the
complainant. All the documents and original Tag were in the custody of the opposite party Nos.1&2. The
complainant came to know the repudiation of his claim two months back from the opposite party No.3. Hence, the
complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to pay the IDV of Rs.48,000/- along
with cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have file their
separate written statements. The opposite party No.2 has pleaded that there is no branch office of the opposite party
No.2 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Merely by impleading Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry
and Dairying, Bathinda does not give rise to the complainant to file the present complaint as no relief has been
sought against the Deputy Director and has been impleaded as party, just to create jurisdiction before this Forum.
The claim of the complainant has been repudiated as per Insurance Policy/cover note No.101701 effective from
08.01.2009 to 07.01.2010 and as per exclusion clause of the policy printed on the backside of the insurance cover
note, the complainant has failed to take reasonable care of the insured cattle and the insured cattle has died due to
Trypanosomiosis on 29.09.2009 as per Post Mortem report and the cattle was ill since 10 days prior to 29.09.2009
before death as such the complainant has failed to take reasonable care of the insured cattle and the claim is not
payable. The opposite party No.2 has further pleaded that the terms and conditions of the cattle insurance are printed
on the backside of every cover note and the complainant has not intentionally produced the same before this Forum.
The intimation regarding the death of the insured to be given within 24 hours but the complainant has failed to give
intimation of the dead animal within stipulated time. Although, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any
compensation to the complainant, yet if this Forum comes to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to
pay any compensation, the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.48,000/- only being sum assured as per
Insurance Policy. The opposite party No.2 has further pleaded that the cattle of the complainant has died on
29.09.2009 as the animal was suffering from pre-existing disease i.e. before 10 days before 29.09.2009. The claim
of the complainant has rightly been repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party No.2 has
further pleaded that 134 death claims of the insured animals were received, out of which 94 lawful claims have been
paid and only 27 have been rejected as per terms and conditions of the policy.
3. The opposite party No.3 has pleaded the the buffalo of Smt. Leela Devi was insured with Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. for IDV of Rs.48,000/- for the period from 08.01.2009 to 07.01.2010. The Insured buffalo died
and the post mortem was conducted by Rural Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Jassi Pau Wali and all
the documents i.e. Post Mortem Report, Death Certificate, Treatment Chart, Tag and Photograph were deposited to
the concerned Veterinary Officer in the office of the opposite party No.3 by the complainant and the opposite party
No.3 had sent all the original documents to the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through agent Sh. Sanjay vide
letter No.3434 dated 28.10.2009. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. sent a list of 134 claims on 12.07.2010
in which 94 were settled, 27 were rejected and 13 were outstanding. The Deputy Director came to know about the
case of the buffalo of Leela Devi that it has been rejected. The opposite party No.3 has further pleaded that the no
investigation of the said buffalo was done by the Company and no enquiry was conducted by any investigation
official and the case of the complainant was rejected without any reason and there was no response from Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. by the opposite party No.3.
4. The opposite party No.1 is deleted on the statement of the complainant dated 30.09.2011.
5. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. Arguments heard. Record along with written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
7. The undisputed facts between the parties are that the complainant had purchased the Insurance Policy/Cover Note
bearing No.101701 from Reliance General Insurance Company Limited for her buffalo of Murrah breed after paying
the requisite premium. The said buffalo was insured for the IDV of Rs.48,000/- and a Tag No.R-101701 was issued
which was attached in the ear of the said buffalo. The policy was valid from 08.01.2009 to 07.01.2010. The Insured
buffalo had died on 29.09.2009.
8. The disputed facts between the parties are that the complainant has specifically submitted that no terms and
conditions of the policy have been supplied to her. She got Health-cum-Evaluation Certificate from Veterinary
Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Jassi Pau Wali to the effect that the animal is free from any disease and is in good
health and recommended for Cattle Insurance. The Insured buffalo had died on 29.09.2009 and the Post Mortem
examination of the said buffalo was conducted by Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Jassi Pau Wali and
the due intimation with regard to the claim of the said buffalo was sent by the complainant to the opposite party No.3
along with Tag and other requisite documents. The opposite party No.3 lodged the claim of the complainant with the
Insurance Company i.e. opposite party Nos.1&2 and the Deputy Director and Diarying (Pashupalan) sent a letter
No.3434 dated 28.10.2009 to Insurance Company but they have repudiated the claim of the complainant. The
complainant had received repudiation letter of her claim about two months back from the opposite party No.3 before
filing of this complaint.
9. The opposite party No.2 has submitted that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated as per exclusion
clause of the policy printed at the back side of the Insurance Policy/Cover Note in which it has been stated that the
complainant is not entitled to get the death claim of the said animal as the complainant has failed to take reasonable
care of the Insured cattle and the Insured cattle had died due to Trypanosomiosis. The said insured buffalo had died
on 29.09.2009 and the cattle was ill since 10 days before 29.09.2009. The opposite party No.2 has further submitted
that the intimation regarding the death of the Insured Animal has to be given within 24 hours but the complainant has
failed to give intimation regarding the death of animal within stipulated period as prescribed in the terms and
conditions of the policy and has further submitted that if this Forum concludes that the Insurance Company is liable
to pay any compensation, then the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.48,000/- only according to the
Insurance Policy.
10. The opposite party No.3 has submitted that no investigation of the said buffalo was done by the Insurance
Company and no investigation was conducted by any investigation official and the case of the complainant was
rejected without any reason.
11. The first ground for repudiation of the claim mentioned in written statement of the opposite party No.2 that the
cattle was ill since 10 days before 29.09.2009 i.e. before the death. The complainant has failed to take the reasonable
care, no such evidence has been placed on file by the opposite parties that the complainant has not taken reasonable
care of the animal. The policy was valid from 08.01.2009 to 07.01.2010 and the said cattle had died approximately
after 8 months from the commencement of the policy where as it was ill since 10 days before its death. Thus, this
objection of the opposite party No.2 is baseless.
12. The second ground for repudiation of the claim of the complainant that the intimation has not been given within
24 hours, is also without any basis as the complainant has given the intimation to the opposite party No.3 and in turn,
the opposite party No.3 has to send the intimation to the Insurance Company. Thus, this ground of repudiation, is
also not tenable as the complainant has given the intimation regarding the death of the insured animal to the opposite
party No.3 in time and the opposite party No.3 has further sent the claim to the opposite party No.2.
13. The opposite party No.2 has taken the legal objection that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present complaint as there is no branch office of the Insurance Company within territorial jurisdiction
of this Forum and the opposite party No.3 has been impleaded by the complainant just to create jurisdiction.
14. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the claim of the insured animal has been sent by Deputy Director,
Animal Husbandry and Diarying (Pashupalan), Bathinda vide letter No.3434 dated 28.10.2009 to the opposite party
No.2 i.e. insurance company. Thus, one of the opposite parties has its office at Bathinda as per Section 11(b) of the
'Act'. Hence, this Forum has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.
15. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is
deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company i.e. opposite party No.2. Hence, this complaint is accepted
with Rs.2,000/- against the opposite party No.2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.2 is
directed to pay the IDV of Rs.48,000/- of the Insured Animal to the complainant. Compliance of this order be done
within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, interest @ 9% p.a. will yield
on the amount of Rs.48,000/- till realization.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
10-02-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
