DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 492 of 20.12.2016
Decided on: 10.8.2017
Gurbhej Singh s/o Sh.Jagtar Singh r/o Dharamgarh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
The United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,10-11, Patiala-Rajpura Road, Rajpura, District Patiala, through its Branch Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.R.S.Alluna,Advocate,counsel for complainant.
Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj,Advocate,counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Gurbhej Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Partys (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.)
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased three cows from one Karamjit Singh s/o Labh Singh r/o village Madiana, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for Rs.50,000/-each vide bill dated 21.8.2016. He got the cows financed from Vijaya Bank, Branch at Rajpura, District Patiala.On 22.8.2016, after getting checked the cows, microchip was got inserted from M/s Guru Ram Dass Chipping Co., R-390, Gurdev Enclave, Sanauri Addi, Patiala and paid Rs.1230/- vide receipt no.2285 dated 22.8.2016. He got insured these cows with the OP vide insurance cover note/corporate challan form bearing sr.No.PTU-001875 for sum assured of Rs.50,000/-each (wrongly typed as Rs.10,000/-) for the period from 9.9.2016 to 8.9.2017 and paid a sum of Rs.6900/-as premium . During the subsistence of the policy out of these cow one cow died. He lodged the claim with the OP. The OP deputed the surveyor who submitted his report. Postmortem on the dead cow was also got conducted. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents with the OP. The OP rejected the claim vide letter dated 7.11.2016 with the observation that the cow died within 15 days from the commencement of the policy and does not cover., as per policy exclusion/exception no.2, diseases contracted prior to commencement of risk and provided always that any claim arising out of diseases on illness contracted by the animals during the first fifteen days”. It is stated that before insurance the cows were medically checked and found fit. That the rejection of the claim is illegal and ultra virus. There is deficiency of service on the part of the OP, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to him. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- the insured value of the cow in question,Rs.11,000/-as litigation expenses alongwith Rs.6900/- Rs.1230/- and Rs.15000/- miscellaneous expenses.
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits ,it is stated that three cows were insured vide insurance policy No.1110074716P108494523 for the period from 9.9.2016 to 8.9.2017 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-each. As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, exclusion/exception no.2, diseases contracted prior to commencement of risk and provided always that any claim arising out of diseases or illness contracted by animal during the first 15 days from the commencement of the policy, does not cover the risk and no claim is payable. The one cow of the complainant died on 21.9.2016 i.e. before completion of 15 days from the date o issue of the insurance policy dated 9.9.2016.Thus the complainant is not entitled for any claim which has rightly been repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 7.11.2016.There is no deficiency of service on its part. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
The ld.counsel for the OP tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Smt.Kanta Devi, alongwith documents Exs.OP1 & OP2 and has closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed b y the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant instead of tendering the Postmortem report of the cow in question in his evidence has produced the same alongwith the written arguments and prayed that the postmortem report being very necessary documents for the fair and proper adjudication of the case, therefore, the same may kindly be taken on record & be considered before parting with the order. It may be stated that it is a settled principle of law that every lis should normally be decided on merits, than by resorting to hyper technicality. When hyper technicalities and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the later shall prevail over the former. The procedure is ultimately meant to advance the cause therefore, than to thwart the same. In view of this, the request made by the ld. counsel for the complainant, the postmortem report, which is a material document for adjudication of the case has been taken on record and is marked as ‘A’.
7. Admittedly, complainant got insured his three cows from the Op vide insurance policy,Ex.OP1 for the period from 9.9.2016 to 8.9.2017 @ Rs.50,000/-per cow. Out of the said three cows, one cow of the complainant died and he accordingly lodged the claim with the OP. It repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 7.11.2016, Ex.OP2, stating therein that on scrutinizing the claim papers, it was found that the said cow died on 21.9.2016, i.e. within 15 days from the period of issuance of the insurance policy i.e. 9.9.2016. As per policy exclusion exception No.2, diseases contracted prior to commencement of risk and provided always that any claim arising out of diseases or illness contracted by the animal during the first fifteen days from the commencement date of policy does not cover. Hence the claim is not payable and closed as no claim . The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the cow in question had not died because of any pre-existing disease but died due to asphyxia as is evident from the postmortem report, marked ‘A’. Asphyxia is a condition when the body is deprived of oxygen causing unconsciousness or death due to suffocation. The OP was thus not justified in repudiating the claim . In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission ,U.T., Chandigarh, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Narinder Singh, wherein it has been held that “there is a postmortem report issued by Dr.Joseph K.Masih who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the animal and stated that cause of death as Cardio-Respiratory Failure which means a heart attack and it is not a disease but a sort of medical accidental death”
From the postmortem report, it is abundantly clear that the cow in question had died due to asphyxia .As per medical dictionary, the meaning of the word asphyxia is ‘a condition of severe deficient supply of oxygen in the body that causes unconsciousness / suffocation. From the postmortem report, it is apparent that the cause of the death of the cow in question was suffocation, which does not tantamount to any disease. There is no evidence with regard to the fact that the cow in question had contracted any disease from the date of commencement of the policy i.e. 9.9.2016 till her death i.e. 21.9.2016. Even otherwise there is no dispute that the cow in question was not medically checked up and examined by the veterinary doctor of the OP before issuing the insurance policy. Further, no symptoms of any disease have been found mentioned in the health certificate, Ex.C4.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:
- To pay Rs.50,000/- i.e. the sum assured of the cow in question alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e.7.11.2016 till its realization ;.
- To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental and physical
harassment to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
The Op is further directed to comply the order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 10.8.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
