DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.401 of 09-08-2011
Decided on 10-02-2012
Sukhjeet Kaur, aged about 35 years, wife of Jaskaran Singh, Resident of village Sardargarh, Tehsil and 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 Nos.1&2 for IDV of Rs.30,000/- vide
Insurance Certificate No.102827 for the period from 12.08.2009 to 11.08.2010. The complainant has alleged that
the opposite party Nos.1&2 did not supply any terms and conditions of the policy to her. The said buffalo of the
complainant was insured with the opposite party Nos.1&2 after getting Health-cum-Evaluation Certificate from Dr.
Randhir Parshad, Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Sardargarh. The doctor after examining the buffalo
of the complainant, declared that the said buffalo is free from any disease and is in good state of health and
recommended for Cattle Insurance. A Tag No.R-102827 was allotted to the said buffalo and attached in the ear of
the said buffalo. The said buffalo of the complainant had died after 2/3 months of the insurance and the Post Mortem
of the said buffalo was conducted by the Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Sardargarh and prepared a
post mortem report. Thereafter, due intimation was sent to the opposite party Nos.1&2 for the payment of the claim
of the complainant 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 the same to the opposite party Nos.1&2. The opposite
party No.3 lodged the claim of the complainant with the opposite party Nos.1&2 along with all documents, Tag and
photograph but the opposite party Nos.1&2 have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated
12.07.2010, addressed to the opposite party No.3. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have never intimated the complainant
about repudiation of her claim. She came to know about the repudiation of her 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.30,000/- along with interest, cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed 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 the 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.102827 effective from
12.08.2009 to 11.08.2010 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 had died due to
Trypanosomiosis on 19.10.2009 as per the record submitted by the complainant and the cattle was lying ill atleast 10
days before death as such the complainant has failed to take reasonable care of the insured cattle and as such 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. As per terms and conditions of the policy, 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 insured animal
within stipulated time to the Insurance Company. The opposite party No.2 has further pleaded that 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.30,000/- only being sum assured as per Insurance Cover Note. The opposite party No.2 has
further pleaded that the cattle of the complainant had died on 19.10.2009 and the animal was suffering from pre-
existing disease i.e. before 19.10.2009. The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated after thorough
investigation and after receipt of documents from the complainant. 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 that the buffalo of Smt. Sukhjeet Kaur, was insured with Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. for IDV of Rs.30,000/- for the period from 12.08.2009 to 11.08.2010. The Insured buffalo died
on 19.10.2009 and the post mortem was conducted by Rural Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital,
Sardargarh and all the documents i.e. Post Mortem Report, Death Certificate, Treatment Chart, Tag and Photograph
were deposited by the concerned Veterinary Officer in the office of the opposite party No.3 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
regarding that the case of the buffalo of Sukhjeet Kaur, 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 suffered on 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.102827 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.30,000/- and a Tag No.R-102827 was issued
which was attached in the ear of the said buffalo. The policy was valid from 12.08.2009 to 11.08.2010. The Insured
buffalo had died on 19.10.2009.
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, Sardargarh to the effect that the animal is free from any disease and is in good
state of health and recommended for Cattle Insurance. The Insured buffalo had died on 19.10.2009 and the Post
Mortem examination of the said buffalo was conducted by Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Sardargarh
and the due intimation with regard to the claim of the said buffalo was sent by the complainant through the opposite
party No.3 along with claim Form, Tag and other requisite documents. The opposite party No.3 lodged the claim of
the complainant with the Insurance Company i.e. the opposite party Nos.1&2 but they have repudiated the claim of
the complainant.
9. The opposite party No.2 has submitted that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated as per
exclusion clause of the policy, printed at the back side of the Insurance Policy/Cover Note, the complainant is not
entitled to get the death claim of the said animal as she has failed to take reasonable care of the insured cattle and the
insured buffalo had died on 19.10.2009 and the post mortem was conducted on 20.10.2009 and the cattle was lying
ill atleast 10 days before death as such the complainant has failed to take reasonable care of the insured cattle. 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 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.30,000/- only according to the
Insurance Policy.
10. The opposite party No.3 has submitted that no investigation of the said buffalo was done either by the Insurance
Company or by any investigation official and the case of the complainant was rejected without any reason.
11. The Insured buffalo had died on 19.10.2009 and the Post Mortem was conducted on 20.10.2009 and the
Insurance Policy/Cover Note in question was obtained on 12.08.2009 and the validity of the said policy was from
12.08.2009 to 11.08.2010. The opposite party No.2 has submitted that they have repudiated the claim of the
complainant as per exclusion clause of the policy as the complainant has failed to take reasonable care of the insured
cattle and the insured buffalo had died due to Trypanosomiosis and the buffalo was ill 10 days before the death. The
opposite party No.2 has submitted that the intimation with regard to the death of the insured animal has to be given
within 24 hours but no intimation has been given by the complainant within stipulated time. It has taken the legal
objection that there is no branch office of the Insurance Company at Bathinda as such this Forum has no jurisdiction
to try and entertain the present complaint.
12. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the Insured animal had died on 19.10.2009. The opposite party
No.2 has failed to produce any evidence with regard to their ground of repudiation that the complainant has failed to
take reasonable care of the insured buffalo.
13. With regard to the second ground for not paying the claim by the opposite party No.2 that the intimation has not
been given within 24 hours, is also baseless as the complainant has given the intimation to the opposite party No.3 in
time and in turn, the opposite party No.3 has to send the information to the Insurance Company.
14. The legal objection that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, is not
tenable as a perusal of Ex.C-7 shows that the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry and Diarying (Pashupalan),
Bathinda has sent the intimation to the Insurance Company vide letter No.3434 dated 28.10.2009. Thus, one of the
opposite party is holding its office at Bathinda and as such this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present complaint u/s 11(b) of the 'Act'.
15. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party
No.2 has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and as such, 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/- as cost and
compensation 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.30,000/- 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.30,000/- 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
