Kerala

Alappuzha

CC/161/2006

S.Retna Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

18 Apr 2008

ORDER


Alappuzha
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ,BAZAR P.O
consumer case(CC) No. CC/161/2006

S.Retna Kumari
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT) The case of the complainant is that the complainant was purchased a cow for an amount of Rs.18,000/- on 20.4.2006. The said cow was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. for the period from 20.4.2006 to 19.4.2006. Thereafter the said cow died on 5.5.2006. The complainant preferred a claim application before the opposite party. But the opposite party repudiated the claim on the reason that the death of the cow was within the waiting period. Hence complainant filed a petition before this Forum. 2. Opposite party filed version stating following contentions. The claim of the complainant is not allowable as per the exclusion clause. The cow died on 5.5.2006. The opposite party issued the policy for a period from 24.4.2006 to 23.4.2009. The cow died within the waiting period. That is 12 days after the commencement of the policy. The policy issued in this case is a non-IRDP scheme policy. Hence the petition may be dismissed. 3. Considering the rival contentions of the complainant and opposite party this Forum framed following issues:- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party with regard to the claim of the complainant. 4. Complainant gave evidence and marked 6 documents. Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence. 5. Ext.A3 is the copy of the policy issued to the complainant with regard to the insurance coverage of the cow. The period of policy starts from 24.4.2006 to 23.4.2009. From this document it can be seen that the period of insurance starts from 24.4.2006 and not from 20.4.2006 claimed by the complainant. Proposal form is a document given by the complainant for the purpose for getting insurance coverage. The entries in this document are one sided document and such entries are not binding to the opposite party. Insurance is a contract between two parties and the period stated in the policy is the relevant time of the contract. This position was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in II (1996) ACC 694. This position was again upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision New Indian Assurance Company Vs. Bhagavathi Devi I (1999) ACC 439. As per the case of the complainant the cow died on 5.5.2006. In Ext.A3 a specific condition was printed as “the company is not liable to pay the claim in the event of death of insured animal due to disease occurring within 15 days from the commencement of the risk”. As per clause 11 of the proposal form (printed form) it is stated that “15 days waiting period applicable for the insurance on non-scheme animals”. Admittedly the cow died on 5.5.2006. That is 12 days from the commencement of the risk. As per the exception clause of 15 days insured is not entitled to get the benefit of the policy. Further the complainant argued that SGSY scheme is also to be considered as scheme stated in clause 11 of Ext.A6. There is no document produced by the complainant to substantiate the claim of the complainant. The Ext.A5, a letter issued from the Indian Overseas Bank states that SGSY scheme is also come within the purview of the term scheme in clause 11. No official document of the company is produced to substantiate the case of the complainant. The complainant has not taken any steps for call for the explanation or official document of the company to substantiate this case. In the absence of a clear document it cannot be considered that SGSY scheme is also incorporated under the scheme stated in the policy condition. On the basis of the above said discussion it can be concluded that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. In the result the complaint dismissed. No order on cost. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 18th day of April, 2008. Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH: Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN: Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI: APPENDIX:- PW1 - Chandran Nair (Witness) Ext.A1 - Authorization letter Ext.A2 - Photo copy of the letter dated 30.6.2006 Ext.A3 - Photo copy of the policy Ext.A4 - Photo copy of the certificate Ext.A5 - Photo copy of the letter dated 16.6.2006 Ext.A6 - Photo copy of the Cattle Insurance proposal form Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F. Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-




......................JIMMY KORAH
......................K.Anirudhan
......................Smt;Shajitha Beevi