Punjab

Sangrur

CC/99/2016

Pankaj Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri P.L. Bansal

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                            

                                                Complaint No.  99

                                                Instituted on:    11.01.2016

                                                Decided on:       12.08.2016

Pankaj Jindal son of Raj Kumar, resident of Village Jakhepal, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     United India Insurance Company Ltd. Near Civil Hospital, Sangrur, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, SCO 72, Phase 9, SAS Nagar, Mohali 160 062 through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sandeep Goyal, Adv.

For OPs.                   :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Pankaj Jindal, 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 cow for Rs.50,000/- by paying the requisite premium for the period from 26.2.2015 to 25.2.2016. It is further stated that at the time of the insurance, the cow was medically examined by the doctor of the Ops i.e. Dr. Vishal Deep, Veterinary Officer, Sunam and accordingly issued health certificate of the cow.  It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy the cow bearing tag number 84129 suddenly died on 24.10.2015. As such, the complainant orally intimated the OPs and the Ops appointed Dr. Ram Kumar to examine the cow, who examined the cow and clicked photographs and thereafter the claim form was also got filled by the Ops.  Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant called Dr. Vishal Deep, who examined the cow and conducted post-mortem of the dead cow.  The complainant submitted all the documents to the Ops, but the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant. 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 the OPs,  it has been admitted that at the request of M/s. Punjab Live Stock Development Board, the OP number 2 insured the cow bearing tag number 84129 of the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant was supplied the policy of the insurance along with the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further stated that after receipt of the intimation of the death of the cow, the OP number 2 immediately appointed Dr. Ram Kumar for spot verification. The said doctor opined that if the photos of carcass tallied with the photos of insured cow, the claim should be paid as per the terms and conditions and submitted the report and as per the report, the tag was not intact in the ear of the deceased animal. It is further stated that after receiving the said report, the OP number 2 appointed Dr. S.C. Aneja for expert opinion/reinvestigation, who opined that the cow bearing tag number 84129 had not actually died and the claim is false. It is stated that the insured cow and dead cow are different and stated that the body make up with white and black patches/markings, face characters, characteristic tail patches of claimed dead cow is not matching with the tail patches of the insured cow.  It is further stated that the OP after examining whole of the record, repudiated the claim of the complainant as there was huge different between the insured and dead cow. 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 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of intimation cum claim form, Ex.C-3 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-4 copy of post-mortem report, Ex.C-5 copy of health certificate and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced  Ex.OP-1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-2 copy of investigation report, Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-13 photographs, Ex.OP-14 copy of investigation report, Ex.OP-15 to Ex.OP-27 photographs, Ex.OP-28 copy of letter dated 20.1.2016, Ex.OP-29 affidavit of Dr. Ram Kumar, Ex.OP-30 affidavit of Dr. SC Aneja, Ex.OP-31 affidavit of Raman Sharma 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 dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his cow from the OPs by paying the requisite premium and the OPs issued the insurance policy, which is on record as Ex.OP-1.  It is also not in dispute that one has died on 24.10.2015 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 there is a lot of difference of the insured and dead cow.  The learned counsel for the OP has contended that the complainant has filed a false complaint saying that the insured cow has died whereas the dead cow is another one, which is not insured.

 

6.             Now, the only question which arises for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim or not and whether the dead cow is insured one or not.

 

7.             It is on the record that after getting the information about the death of the cow in question, the OPs appointed Dr. Ram Kumar to conduct investigation about the death of the cow, who submitted his report, which is on the record as Ex.OP-2 and in the report he opined that he photographed the carcass from the different sides and ear tag number UII/84129 was with the owner.  It has been further stated in the report that if the photographs of the carcass tallies with the photos of the insured animal, then the claim should be paid as per the insurance policy.  But, the OPs found that the carcass of the dead cow was not matching with the insured one.  As such, the Op appointed another investigator, namely, Dr. SC Aneja, who also submitted his report dated 24.12.2015, which is on record as Ex.OP-14. A bare perusal of the report shows that the investigator found that body make up with white and black patches/markings, phenotypical make up of insured and claimed cow are not matching with each other, face characters, white start of the insured cow is not matching and white star of dead animal cow. The white patches, marked characters of left side body portion/right side body portions, upper dorsal side of spinal cord of insured cow are not matching with the natural marked patches of the dead claimed cow and the result, he opined that the claim is falsely lodged and claimed cow is not insured one.  We have ourselves also perused the photographs Ex.OP-15 and Ex.OP-16 of the insured cow with the photographs of the dead cow which are on record as Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-13, which we feel are not matching with the dead cow.  More over, the tag was not found intact in the ear of the dead cow.  There is no clarification why the tag was with the complainant and why the same was removed from the ear of the cow. As such, the clause ‘no tag no claim’ is also applicable in the present case, as the tag was with the complainant at the time of death of the cow.   Under these circumstances, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case that the dead cow was insured one with the Ops by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 12, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                  Member

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member