BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A.,LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.44/2010 Order dated this the 16th day of July 2010 COMPLAINANT/S Smt.Nagamani W/o N.C.Nanjaiah, R/o Nambinayakanahalli Village, Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. (INPERSON) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1.Dr.Srinivas,Veterinary Doctor, Bidarakote Veterinary Doctor School,Maddur Taluk. 2.The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., No.42:1, Naveen Complex, Hebbal Main Road, Metagalli, Mysore 16. (By Sri.Dr.Srinivas G., for O.P.1 & Sri.B.C.Basavaraju., Advocate for O.P.2) Date of complaint 12.04.2010 Date of service of notice to OPs 19.04.2010 Date of order 16.07.2010 Total Period 2 Months 27 days Result The complaint is allowed, directing the 2nd Opposite party to pay insurance amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 01.08.2009 till payment with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties claiming insurance amount of Rs.25,000/- and compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 2. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant was rearing H.F cow and 1st Opposite party came to the house and persuaded to insure the cow and collected Rs.1,050/- from her and then she obtained policy No.422805/47/2009/2995. The ear tag fixed to the cow by 1st Opposite party was lost and he has fixed the new ear tag to the cow and made endorsement. Later, the said cow died due to fever, but she was not able to get the insured amount from the Opposite parties. When she approached the 2nd Opposite party, they informed that Dr.Srinivas has sent the ear tag after death of the cow. Though, the cow is insured with 2nd Opposite party and new tag was applied to the cow, the Opposite parties are not settling the insurance claim. Therefore, she has filed the above complaint claiming insurance amount with compensation. 3. The 1st & 2nd Opposite parties were served with notices. 1st Opposite party has filed version pleading that on 03.04.2008 collecting Rs.765/- from the Complainant as premium for ear tag bearing No.78753/OICBLR, sent requisition to the Oriental Insurance Company, Mysore with health certificate and premium. The Oriental Insurance Company issued a policy for the cow of the Complainant, starting from 03.05.2008. On 06.08.2008, the Complainant gave petition stating that the ear tag fixed to the cow was lost and requested to fix another ear tag on that basis, on 07.08.2008 ear tag bearing No.78760/OICBLR was fixed to the cow and on the same day, a letter was sent to the insurance company about the same vide to register no.11/08-09. The insured cow died on 24.08.2008. On the same day the information was given to the insurance company and the insurance company agent visited and confirmed the death cow and thereafter post mortem was conducted. The claim paper of insurance of the Complainant was sent to the insurance company on 02.10.2008. But, the insurance company has rejected the claim after three months stating that the insurance amount cannot be given on account of change of the ear tag. Thereafter, he informed the insurance company through phone stating that on 07.08.2008 itself new ear tag was fixed to the cow and on 01.08.2009 letter was made to the insurance company with all details and to settle the claim. But, the insurance company has not settled the claim and he is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant and order may be passed against the Insurance Company. 4. The 2nd Opposite party has filed version, admitting the obtaining insurance for the cow by the Complainant for the period from 03.05.2008 to 02.05.2011 and the ear tag No.ET-78753 was given to identify the insured cow. As per the terms of the insurance policy to claim the insurance amount, the ear tag is important and there is a specific condition no tag no claim, Death certificate of the cow was given stating that the said cow died on 24.08.2008, but in the confirmation certificate, the ear tag number is mentioned as 78760. Since, the insurance was not given to the cow having ear tag no.78760, Opposite party is not liable to pay any insurance amount. Even there was no information that the ear tag fixed to the cow was lost and new ear tag was fixed to the cow, loosing old ear tag and new tag was fixed. The complaint is filed in collusion with the 1st Opposite party. At the time of obtaining the policy, the photo of the cow was not given. The ear tag bearing No.78753 is the mark to identify the dead cow. Since the said ear tag was not produced endorsement by 2nd Opposite party was issued that compensation cannot be paid. The Complainant and 1st Opposite party joining together created of documents and have filed a false complaint. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 5. During trial, the Complainant is examined and she has produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.5. The 1st & 2nd Opposite parties are examined and Ex.R.1 to R.8 are marked. 6. Both the parties have filed written arguments. 7. We have perused the records. 8. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the insured cow died? 2. Whether the 2nd Opposite parties has committed deficiency in service in rejecting the claim? 3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the insurance amount with compensation? 9. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 10. POINTS NO.1 TO 3:- The admitted facts are that through the department, the cow of the Complainant was insured with 2nd Opposite party Insurance Company, stating from 03.05.2008 to 02.05.2011 and the said cow was given with the ear tag no.78753. Now the cow of the Complainant is dead. When the Complainant preferred the insurance claim, the 2nd Opposite party has rejected the claim on the ground that in the death certificate of the cow the ear tag number is mentioned as 78760, whereas, the insured cow was bearing the ear tag No.78753, therefore the insurance claim was rejected. But, the contention of the Complainant is that the ear tag No.78753 fixed to the cow was lost and 1st Opposite party doctor fixed another tag bearing No.78760 and the endorsement made on the policy and even 1st Opposite party support the case of the Complainant in the version and evidence. The contention of the 1st Opposite party is that in the meeting of the Veterinary Doctors in the presence of Deputy Director, the Insurance Company Manager informed that in case of loss of ear tag, the Veterinary Doctor who examined the cow, can put the new ear tag and endorse on the insurance certificate. But, the officer of the 2nd Opposite party insurance company has stated that the Branch manager could not say in that manner and only Branch Manager has to certify the change of ear tag number on the policy. It is the contention of the 2nd Opposite party Company that only on the basis of the ear tag number, the insured cow can be identified. But, the evidence of the Complainant and that to mainly evidence of 1st Opposite party and the documents produced by him clearly established that the ear tag fixed to the insured cow was lost and on the request of Complainant new ear tag was fixed to the insured cow and endorsement was made on the policy mentioning the new tag number and the said change of tag number informed to the insurance company by writing letters through the office. In Ex.R.2 insurance policy, the 1st Opposite party Veterinary Doctor has rounded of the tag number and written the new tag number on 07.08.2008. The 1st Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 the copy of the letter said to have been sent to the 2nd Opposite party Insurance Company. In this letter, the loss of tag number and fixation of the new tag number is mentioned and copy of the insurance certificate with new tag number was sent. According to the 2nd Opposite party Insurance Company, they have not at all received letter Ex.R.1, Ex.R.3 and Ex.R.4, but the 1st Opposite party has produced the To Register of the office and as per this register on 07.08.2008 the letter number 11/2008-09 was sent to Opposite party with regard to the change of ear tag to the insured cow of the Complainant. It cannot be accepted that To Register of the office is created for the purpose of the case, because it is a document regularly maintained for sending of the letters to Department and other Offices. Even Ex.R.3 another letter is sent to 2nd Opposite party on 26.08.2008 in continuation of the earlier letter Ex.R.1. Later on 01.08.2009 as per Ex.R.4 the 1st Opposite party Veterinary Doctor with recommendation of the Deputy Director of Veterinary Science and Assistant Director, has sought for early settlement of the claim in favour of the Complainant mentioning the change of ear tag on 07.08.2008 and making endorsement in the policy and the copy of the To Register was sent along with this letter Ex.R.4. Even though, Ex.R.1, R.3 and R.4 are not sent by RPAD, most of the letters will be sent by the Department by ordinary post and not by RPAD. It is an admitted fact that the 1st Opposite party Veterinary Doctor got insured cow of the Complainant collecting amount with contribution by the Government, submitting health certificate of the cow as per Ex.R.7. It is an admitted fact that the ear tags are given to Veterinary Doctor 1st Opposite party and he fixed the ear tags to the cow insured and insurance certificate is obtained on the basis of the certificate issued by Veterinary Doctor. Considering the evidence of the Complainant and particularly 1st Opposite party and the documents Ex.R.1, R.3 and R.4 apart from Ex.R.2. It is clearly established that when the ear tag of the insured cow was lost, new tag No.78760 was fixed by 1st Opposite party and made endorsement on insurance certificate Ex.R.2 and the said matter was reported to insurance company as per letter Ex.R.1 and R.3 and as per Ex.R.4 the insurance company was requested to settle the claim. It is easy for the insurance company to say that they have not received any letters, but the documents maintained by the department are maintained in the regular course of official work and there is no reason to suspect these documents and the contention of the 2nd Opposite party that the documents are created cannot be accepted at all. The rejection of the insurance claim by 2nd Opposite party stating that the tag number is changed in the death certificate of the cow and the original tag bearing No.78753 ear tag was not produced and therefore, the claim is rejected as per policy condition; cannot be accepted and it is established that the insured cow is dead and the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim and 2nd Opposite party is liable to pay the insurance claim. Therefore, we answer points no.1 to 3 in the affirmative. 11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed, directing the 2nd Opposite party to pay insurance amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 01.08.2009 till payment with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 16th day of July 2010). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
