Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1661/2015

Mithanjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Aggarwal

05 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                              

                                                Complaint No.  1661

                                                Instituted on:    14.12.2015

                                                Decided on:       05.08.2016

 

Mithanjit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Village Harkishanpura, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                                            Versus

 

1.     United India Insurance Company Ltd. Sunam through its Manager District Sangrur.

2.     United India Insurance Company Ltd. Regd, Office : 24, Whites Road, Chennai through its M.D.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.

For OPs.                   :       Shri LK Singla, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Mithanjit 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 OPs by getting insured his cows for Rs.50,000/- each by paying the requisite premium. The Ops issued the tags to each of the cow.  It is further averred that the complainant has been running the dairy farm in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy one cow of the complainant died on 6.6.2014 at about 4.00 am. As such, the information was given to OP number 1 and the OP number 1 appointed Dr. Ram Kumar, who conducted the post-mortem of the cow and the chip was kept by the said doctor.  Thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents to the OPs.  Further case of the complainant is that in the month of October, 2014, the complainant received one letter dated 9.10.2014 bearing number Misc.Claim:BoS:2014 1047 mentioning that the claim has been repudiated as the chip was not readable, which is said to be wrong and illegal. It is further averred that the chip has been inserted by the OPs and pulled out by the OPs and the complainant had to do nothing in this regard. 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 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs,  it has been admitted that the cow in question was insured one and after receipt of the information, the OPs appointed Dr. Ram Kumar to conduct the post-mortem. At the time of post-mortem, Dr. Ram Kumar could not read the chip as stated in the post-mortem report, so the Ops were unable to locate that dead cow was insured one. Further it is stated that the chip in question was also read out from M/s. Inco Tag Industries, New Delhi, but the result was the same, therefore, the Ops have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  However, any deficiency in service at all on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of PMR, Ex.C-2 copy of letter dated 09.10.2014, Ex.C-3 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number  has produced  and Ex.OP-1 copy of letter dated 9.10.2014, Ex.OP-2 copy of report, Ex.OP-3 copy of certificate, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter dated 6.6.2014 and Ex.OP-5 and Ex.OP-6 are the affidavits and closed evidence.

 

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

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his cows from OPs by paying the requisite premium.  It is also not in dispute that out of the insured cows, one has died on 6.6.2014 of which intimation was given to the OPs and the Ops appointed Dr. Ram Kumar to conduct the post-mortem report.   The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the flimsy ground that the chip detected from the dead animal was not readable, which is said to be illegal one. On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the claim has been rightly repudiated.

 

 

6.             Ex.C-1 is the copy of the post-mortem report produced by the complainant and Ex.C-2 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 9.10.2014, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the claim has been repudiated due to the reason that the chip was not readable.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that if the chip was not readable then it is the fault of the OPs as the chip in question was inserted in the insured animal at their own and the complainant had to do nothing in this respect.  On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the claim has been repudiated as the chip was not readable and further we have perused the copy of investigation report Ex.OP-2, wherein in the conclusion it is stated that as the broken microchip was found from the body of the carcass, the claim is not maintainable in the absence of proper identification of the animal. Further the OPs has also produced Ex.OP-3 the certificate issued by Inco Tag Industries, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the chip was not readable.  But, we are unable to go with the contention of the learned counsel for the Ops that the claim has been rightly repudiated as the chip was not readable.  It is worth mentioning here that the chip in question was inserted by the Ops at the time of insurance at their own and recovered the same after the death of the cow at their own by the Ops, as such the OPs were supposed to provide good quality microchip, which is readable.  If the microchip was not readable, then the fault is on the part of the Ops as they provided inferior quality microchip and the claim of the complainant cannot be thrown on this ground, as such, we feel that the repudiation on this ground is not sustainable. The Ops are as such deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

 

 

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 OPs 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. 14.12.2015 till its realisation.  OPs  are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, 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.

                August 5, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member