BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 145 of 2012
Date of Institution : 26.7.2012
Date of Decision : 28.4.2016
Shiv Chand son of Sh.Shish Pal, resident of village & Post Office, Goriwala, Tehsil Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Durga Mandir Road, Mandi Dabwali Distt. Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.Lohia…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA .. ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Satbir Godara Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
Case of complainant is that he got insured his she buffalo with United India Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. opposite party vide Policy No. 1119014710010000801 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- after her due medical check ups from Veterinary Surgeon of Goriwala. At that time, Buffalo was hale and healthy. During the period of insurance, the buffalo suddenly became ill. The complainant reported the matter to the opposite party, who advised him to get medically checked the buffalo. The medical treatment of said buffalo was started by the Veterinary surgeon. The doctor opined that the buffalo was suffering from paralysis disease and ultimately, said buffalo died on 9.12.2011. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim, which was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that “on consultation of Health Certificate, we note that the particulars of Carcass are not matching and that there are big white star on the forehead of dead buffalo whereas no such identification was mentioned in the Health Certificate. The said repudiation of claim is wrong, illegal and the same is liable to be set-aside. Hence, the present complaint for getting insured amount of Rs.30,000/- with upto date interest, besides claiming damages for harassment and litigation expenses.
2. Opposing the case of the complainant, it is pleaded by the opposite party that after due investigation and verification the claim of the complainant was repudiated and it was intimated to him that after due verification by Sh.S.K.Dua, Surveyor of the company, it was found that the contents of health certificate and particulars are not matching with the tag number deceased buffalo. After physical inspection, it was found that there was big white star on the forehead of the dead buffalo, whereas no such type of identification about the insured buffalo was mentioned in the health certificate. Thus, on the doubtful identification of dead buffalo, the claim of the complainant was repudiated.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2-impugned repudiation letter dated 29.1.2012; Ex.C3-slip regarding date of death and date of attendance etc. Ex.C4-copy of Veterinary certificate regarding description of Animal; Ex.C5-copy of Livestock Claim Form; Ex.C6-Treatment Chart; Ex.C7-copy of Health-cum-evaluation certificate; Ex.C8-copy of post mortem report; whereas, opposite party has placed on record Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh.Santosh Kumar Sharma, Branch Manager of company; Ex.R2-copy of repudiation letter; Ex.R3-report of Surveyor; Ex.R4-copy of clarification given by complainant; Ex.R5 and Ex.R6-letters written to Veterinary Surgeon; Ex.R7-post mortem report; Ex.R8-copy of Health Health-cum-evaluation certificate..
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter Ex.C2 on the ground that particulars of the dead buffalo were not matched with the Health certificate at the time of insurance. The company has alleged that there was a white star on the forehead of the dead buffalo, but this identification was not written in the Health certificate. As per report of the Surveyor Ex.R3, the Tag no.29402 in the ear of the carcass was intact and was the same, which was affixed at the time of insurance. Moreover, nowhere in the health certificate, it was mentioned that there was no white star on the forehead of the buffalo. Rejection of the claim merely on this fake ground is not tenable. There is absolute nothing to support the pleaded case of the opposite party. Therefore, necessary inference is against the opposite party and in favour of the complainant. Thus, it is very clear that repudiating genuine claim of the complainant, is not only gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, but it is also totally unfair trade practice on its part.
6. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of complaint i.e. 26.7.2012 till payment. The complainant is also allowed compensation of Rs.1,000/-, for his harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.1000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:28.4.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
D.C.D.R.F.,Sirsa.
Shiv Chand VS UIIC
Present: Sh.Satbir Godara Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite party.
Arguments heard. Order is reserved.
President,
Dt.26.4.2016. D.C.D.R.F,Sirsa.
Member.
