By G. Yadunadhan, President:

            The matter was remanded back from Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram for fresh disposal.  As per the direction the Forum issued notice to the both parties. Both are appeared and argued the matter.  No fresh evidence adduced by both sides, opposite party argued only regarding the exclusion Clause-2 of the policy schedule.  According to the complainant she had purchased a cow through Chakkittapara Service Co-operative Society at Muthukad branch for Rs.12,000/-.  The above said cow was examined by a doctor and get insured for Rs.12,000/- through the opposite party No.1.  Complainant used to take the milk to society for 5 days.  After that the cow was not in a good health.  Due to some illness the cow was died on 12.8.2005, while undergoing treatment by a Veterinary Doctor.   After the death of the cow, complainant approached to the opposite party No.1 for getting the insurance claim.  Opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the cow had pre-existing disease.  Hence complainant is seeking relief against the opposite party to get back the insured amount along with interest.

            Opposite party No.1 entered in appearance and filed version stating that there is no deficiency in service from the opposite party.  On the other hand the insurance policy of the cow was started on 13.7.2005.  The premium for the policy was paid by way of Demand Draft dated 12.7.2005 issued by Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank at Calicut.  The cow was attended by the Veterinary Doctor on 14.7.2005 as certified by Doctor Ravi. The policy exceptions No.2 “diseases contracted prior to commencement of risk and provided always that any claim arising oust of disease or illness contracted by the animal during the first 15 days from the commencement date of policy”.  The claim was validly repudiated as per clause 2 of the policy agreement. 

            Now the only point for consideration is whether the complaint has come under the purview of exclusion Clause-2 of the policy?

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties.  Opposite paprty-1 produced documents marked as Ext.B1 to B3. At this stage considering only the evidence adduced by opposite paprty-1.  While perusal of Ext.B3 policy copy the exclusion clause-2 clearly shows that “diseases contracted prior to commencement of risk and provided always that any claim arising oust of disease or illness contracted by the animal during the first 15 days from the commencement date of policy”.    Same time Ext.B1 also shows the Veterinary Surgeon attended the said cow on 14^th, 15^th, 16^th and 20^th of July 2005 it signifies the said cow had undergone treatment by a Veterinary Doctor.  The policy was taken on 13-7-05.  The death of the cow occurred on 12-8-05.  As per Ext.B1 records shows that the cow had undergone treatment by a Veterinary Doctor prior to the death.  Since the opposite party-1 given more stress to the pre existing disease at the time of hearing by supporting the documentary evidence, Forum appreciates their argument and disallowed the claim by the complainant.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with no costs.

Pronounced in the open court this the 21st day of May 2010.

            SD/- PRESIDENT                         SD/- MEMBER                SD/- MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1        Photocopy of cattle insurance proposal form.

A2        Insurance Policy No.101600/47/04/00881.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

B1         Cattle claim form.

B2         Veterinary Certificate by Dr. Ravi.

B3         Cattle Insurance Policy No.101600/47/05/00284.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1     Joly Baby, D/o. Thomas Alayil – Complainant.

Witness examined for the Opposite party:

            None

-/True copy/-

Sd/-President

(Forwarded/By Order)

Senior Superintendent.