Punjab

Sangrur

CC/701/2015

Amanjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri A.S.Dullat

03 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

      

                                                Complaint No.  701

                                                Instituted on:    22.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       03.05.2016

 

Amarjit Singh son of Prem Singh, resident of Tibbi Ravidaspura, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office SCO-72, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Manager.

2.     Veterinary Hospital, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur through its Veterinary Officer.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri A.S.Dullat, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri P.S.Ratol, Adv.

For OP No.2.            :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                KC Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Amarjit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 by getting insured his two cows for Rs.50,000/- each by paying the requisite premium for the period from 28.05.2014 to 27.05.2015. The Ops issued the tags to each of the insured cow.  It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy one of the cow fell ill on 13.7.2014 and as such, he approached Dr. Vishal Deep, Veterinary Surgeon of Veterinary Hospital, Sunam for the treatment and ultimately the cow died on 13.7.2014. Post-mortem of the cow in question was also conducted by the concerned Veterinary doctor and the token number 76226 was also handed over to the complainant after the post-mortem of the cow. The complainant submitted all the documents to the OPs.  It is further averred that as such, the complainant approached the Op  so many times for the claim amount, but all in vain despite serving of legal notice dated 29.4.2015 through his counsel. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such, OP number 2 was proceeded exparte on 23.10.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable against the OP, that the complainant has wrongly, frivolously and unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that two cows of the complainant were insured as per health certificate dated 28.5.2014 as per the description of the animal given in the health certificate. It is denied that the cow in question was treated on 13.7.2014 and further it has been denied that the complainant handed over the token number 76226 to the complainant. It is further denied that the alleged token number 76226 was tagged in the ear of the cow, whereas the said token was tagged in the ear of another cow.  However, it is stated that after receipt of the intimation dated 13.7.2014 from the complainant, Dr. Ram Kumar was deputed to investigate the claim and for spot verification of the cow, who visited the spot and took photographs and submitted his report along with photographs and has submitted in the report that as per his opinion he photographed the carcass from different sides and ear tag number 76226/UII was with the complainant. It is stated further that as per health certificate, the captioned cow had black and white udder with black and white teats and in case of carcass, the belly and udder were white.  As such, it is stated that on the basis of the report of the investigation, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as ‘no claim’. However any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of health certificate, Ex.C-5 copy of intimation cum claim form, Ex.C-6 copy of post-mortem certificate and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced  Ex.OP-1/1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-1/2 copy of intimation, Ex.OP1/3 copy of claim note, Ex.OP1/4 copy of photograph of insured animal, Ex.OP1/5 copy of certificate, Ex.Op1/6 copy of spot verification, Ex.OP1/7 to Ex.OP/14 copies of photographs of dead animal, Ex.OP1/15 copy of claim form, Ex.OP1/16 copy of PMR, Ex.OP1/17 copy of compliance certificate and closed evidence.

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his two cows in question from OP number 1 by paying the requisite premium for the period from 28.5.2014 to 27.5.2015. It is an admitted fact of the parties that one cow belonging to the complainant fell ill on 13.7.2014 and the complainant immediately called Dr. Vishal Deep of Veterinary Hospital Sunam, but all in vain and ultimately the cow in question died.  It is further an admitted fact that the intimation regarding the death of the cow was given to the OP and the complainant also submitted the token number 76226 to the OPs for payment of the insurance claim amounting to Rs.50,000/-, but the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per the health certificate, the cow in question had black and white udder with black and white teats, but the dead cow had white belly and udder.  We have also perused the investigation report dated 14.8.2014 conducted by Dr. Ram Kumar and found that it has been clearly mentioned in the report that the ear tags were in the possession of the insured and the second cow of the insured is in good health.  In the present case, the only question which arises for determination is whether the OPs have rightly and legally repudiated the claim, but our answer is that the OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim.  It is worth mentioning here that the Ops have produced on record the Photostat copies of the photographs Ex.OP1/7 to Ex.OP1/14, but the original photographs have not been produced on record for our perusal. We may mention that the reason for repudiation of the claim is that as per the health certificate, the cow in question had black and white udder with black and white teats, but the dead cow had white belly and udder, but it is not possible for us to see in the photographs what is white and what is black.  As such, we feel that the OP has miserably failed to prove his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on the file. Further Ex.OP1/16 is the Photostat copy of the post-mortem report, which clearly shows that the cow in question bearing tag number 76226 had died and the report has been duly signed by the Veterinary Doctor of the Civil Veterinary Hospital, Sunam.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that  in the present case, the fact remains and proved on record that the cow in question also died during the subsistence of the insurance policy, which was insured with the Ops for Rs.50,000/-. 

7.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- being the insurance claim on account of death of the insured cow in question along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 22.07.2015 till its realisation.  OP number 1 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 3, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                    Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member