This is a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 filed by Smt. Bimala Debnath where in it is contended inter alia to the effect that the complainant since purchasing a cow with the loan amount sanctioned by UBKG Bank(Kukurjan Branch) insured with the O.P. insurance company this O.P. on 07/01/’11. But while the said cow was under treatment of veterinary surgeon of this insurance company the said cow died in 04/07/’11. As the information of death of the said was given to O.P. the insurance company in proper time and as the insurance company was aware about the identity of the said cow, the postmortem of the said cow was made at the instance of said insurance company. The postmortem report indicates the Tag no. of the said cow. According to complainant as the said Tag was lost before the death of that cow, but the sign of tagging through the piercing of the ear of the said cow was indicated. But unfortunately the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on 15/09/’12 with the plea of “No TageNo Claim” i.e. the claim was repudiated by the insurance company as no tag was found in the ear of the deceased cow. It is also contended in the complaint that as the complainant was not aware about the terms & conditions (written in English language) mentioned in the insurance certificate, it was not possible for her to know about the said terms & conditions. As the op insurance company repudiated her claim illegally, the complainant filing this complaint claiming reliefs.
The op contested this case by filing Written Version where in it is contended inter alia to the effect that as the complainant at the different authorities informed regarding loss of ear tag of the cow in question which really creates doubts on the credibility and probability of the claim in question which proves / creates the unreality of the claim of the complainant and creates breach of terms of contract of insurance policy. It is also contended by the op to the effect that while the Ear Tag of the insured cow was allegedly lost which was not properly informed to O.P. or police station in time, an adverse inference should be drawn against the complainant. It is also contended that as the seller from whom the said cow was purchased was not made party to this case, it is defect of party. As the Tag was not produced by the complainant before the O.P. insurance company, the complaint is not entitle to get any relief as sought for.
Under the above averments both party went on hearing with the following points:-
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as sought for?
- To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled?
Decisions with reasons
Point nos 1 & 2:-
Both the points are taken up together for consideration in discussion as they are
inter linked and inter related.
Admittedly, insurance policy was issued by the opposite party after the
complainant’s cow was insured. Admittedly, the cow in question died on 04/07/’11 which was reported to the insurance company by the complainant on 05/07/’11. It is also admitted that the postmortem of the said deceased cow was made by the veterinary surgeon at the instance of the insurance company.
According to settled principles of law we know that the terms & conditions of a contract through policy of insurance must be binding upon the parties. Violation of the terms of insurance policy does not help the party by whom the said violation is made. According to policy of insurance of the cow in question the owner of the cow must produce the Ear Tag of the said cow and / or must inform the insurance company if the said Tag is lost. According to O.P. the Ear Tag should be surrendered before the insurance company at the time of the claim, other wise the claim would be repudiated and no claim is recoverable from O.P. insurance company under the policy in question. The cow in question died on 04/07/’11 which was informed by complainant to Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank through letter dt. 05/07/’11. It reveals in letter dt. 07/06/’11 of Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank addressed to the O.P. that the Ear Tag in question has been lost.
It is specific case of the O.P. Insurance Company that as the complainant could not surrender the Ear Tag of the female cow in question, her claim had been rightly repudiated. But it is found in the relevant documents of postmortem report of the deceased female cow that the said postmortem was held by the veterinary surgeon of the O.P. and postmortem report bears the Tag No.- 12061 which is not challenged by the O.P. That apart it is not case of the O.P. insurance company that the veterinary surgeon of the O.P. did not make the postmortem on the deceased cow of the complainant. So we do hold that the identification of the said cow in question remains unchallenged and unrebutted and accordingly Ear Tag in question to identify of the cow was not necessary / required.
Resultantly the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the C.C.No.:- 14/2013 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. 1986 made by complainant Smt. Bimala Debnath be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P. Insurance Company with cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by O.P. in favour of the complainant.
The O.P. is hereby further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only to the complainant as compensation for demise of the insured cow.
The O.P. – Insurance Company is to liquidate the said entire decretal dues in favour of the complainant within one month from this day, failing which the complainant is to recover the said entire decretal dues along with interest @ 10% p.a. on the decretal dues to the calculated from the date of filing of the case till recovery of the said entire decretal dues by filing a separate proceeding against the O.P.- Insurance Company.