IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of January, 2018
Filed on 06.07.2017
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.183/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. C. Chidambaran United India Insurance Co. ltd
S/o Chellappan Branch Mullackal
Veliyil Veedu Alappuzha
Komalapuram Village (Adv. T.S.Suresh)
Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complaint in short is as follows:-
The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a dairy farmer and insured his cattle with the opposite party. During the policy period one of the cows is suffered from mastitis and stopped yielding milk. The veterinary doctor treated the cow from 2/11/2016 till 25-5-2017 and finally the doctor confirmed that the cow has mastitis. According to the complainant he has insured the cow for Rs. 35,000/-. Since the cow stopped yielding milk he has submitted the claim form along with all relevant documents before the opposite party but they repudiated the claim hence filed this complaint.
2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-
Complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. It is submitted that this opposite party has received the claim from complaint, regarding cow having ear tag No.94128 opposite party deputed qualified veterinary doctor to examine. Whether the cow having any permanent total disability or not and veterinary doctor submitted veterinary report stating that only three quarter of the udder is hard and other one is normal. So the animal will yield two and half liter milk. So there is absolutely no permanent total disability to the cow. Since there is no permanent total disability, hence as per exception No.8 of the policy condition complaint is not entitled for any benefit under the policy. Hence company is not liable to pay anything to the complainant. Hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated and the same was communicated as per letter dated 7/8/2017. And petitioner is not entitled to get relief from the opposite party so the complaint may be dismissed.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 and A2 were marked. Opposite party produced 3 documents marked as Ext.B1 to B3.
4. Considering the allegation of the complainant this Forum as raised the following issues for consideration:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
5. Issues 1 and 2:-
The case of the complainant is that the complainant has insured his cow with the opposite party for a period starting from 30-5-2014 to 29-05-2017. During the policy period the complainant’s cow is affected with mastitis and treated by the veterinary doctor. According to the complainant the cow lost its capacity to yield the milk and therefore he is entitled to get the insurance claim.
6. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 to A2 were marked. Ext.A1 is the veterinary certificate Ext.A2 is the copy of claim form. According to the opposite party only three quarter of the udder is hard and the other one is normal. So the animal will yield two and half liter milk so there is no permanent total disability to the cow and hence the claim was repudiated. In Ext.A1 veterinary surgeon who treated that cow was clearly stated that “Recurrent mastitis attack resulted in permanent incapacity to yield milk”. From the documents it is clear that the cow has permanent incapacity to yield milk. Furthermore on Ext.B2 veterinary enquiry report it is stated that the Permanent total disability was confirmed on 25-5-2017 and the cause of permanent total disability is mastitis. The Permanent Total Disability was confirmed during the policy period, so the complainant is entitled to get the Permanent Total Disability claim. The denial of claim on the part of the opposite party amounts deficiency in service. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay the Permanent
Total Disability claim to the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards cost. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2018.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Chidambaran(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Veterinary Certificate
Ext.A2 - Claim form
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of letter.
Ext.B2 - Copy of Veterinary Enquiry Report
Ext.B3 - Copy of Cattle Insurance policy schedule.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
