KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 220/2020
JUDGMENT DATED: 14.11.2022
(Against the Order in C.C. 12/2018 of CDRF, Kottayam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Hillson Heights, 1st Floor, Opp: CTO, Pulimoodu Jn., Pin-686 001 represented by V. Vivek, Asst. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., DO-1, LMS Compound, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. R. Jagadish Kumar)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Jincy, Vakkuvallil, Thalayolapparambu P.O, Kottayam-686 001.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed against an order dated 23.11.2019 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (District Forum for short) in C.C. No. 12/2018. The appellant is the opposite party and the complainant is the respondent herein. As per the order appealed against, the appellant has been directed to pay the entire amount of insurance policy of Rs. 40,000/-, compensation of Rs. 7,000/- and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as costs.
2. The complaint was filed by the respondent aggrieved by the rejection of an insurance claim made by her, by the appellant. The respondent had insured her cow, her only source of livelihood as per the policy No. 1005054714P112215758 with the appellant on 13.03.2015. At the time of taking the insurance, her cow was six months old. The term of insurance was up to12.03.2018. On 21.11.2017 the cow was inflicted with Mastitics followed by hip dislocation due to downer disease. Though treatment was given, the condition of the cow deteriorated and had died. The respondent applied to the appellant for the insurance amount producing treatment expenses and photographs of the cow. A veterinary doctor deputed by the appellant company visited the cow and filed a report. But, the appellant repudiated the claim alleging that the age of the cow was more than 32 months. The aggrieved respondent filed the complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service. According to her, the period of insurance had not expired and she was entitled to claim the amount.
3. On receipt of notice the appellant appeared and contested the complaint by filing version. According to the appellant, the respondent was not a consumer. Though the policy was admitted, they contended that the coverage was applicable only up to the age of 32 months of the cow. The policy was issued to calf breeders as per the calf subsidy programme of the Animal Husbandry Department of Government of Kerala. As per the scheme, the calf breeders were provided with calf feed at 50% subsidy for a period of 32 months from the date of insurance. The subsidised feed was in addition to the insurance cover provided. 50% of the payment was to be made by the Government and 50% by the owner of the calf. According to the appellant, the calf of the respondent was more than 38 months of age. On receipt of the claim, appellant had arranged for an inspection by Dr. K.C. Varghese, Deputy Director, who inspected the animal. In his opinion the calf was more than 32 months old. Therefore, the claim was repudiated and a letter was sent to the Assistant Director, Calf Feed Subsidy Programme by the appellant.
4. Though the policy period was mentioned as 13.03.2015 to 12.03.2018 in the policy, the same was applicable only to a calf aged less than 32 months. The period was shown on the policy as valid up to 12.03.2018 only for the reason that, they are able to generate from their computer system only policies of either one year or three years as per the specific software approved and used by them. However, in the policy it has been mentioned as a special condition that the policy would apply only to a calf up to 32 months of age. It was also contended that their liability was limited to 50% of the sum assured or market value whichever was less. In the present case, for 52 calves the total sum insured was Rs. 17,16,000/-.Since the calf was not dead the maximum liability is 50% of 17,16,000/- divided by 52 which comes to Rs. 16,500/-. According to the appellant the claim was repudiated for valid reasons.
5. The parties went to trial on the above pleadings. Both sides filed proof affidavit. Exts. A1 to A5 and MO1 were marked on the side of the respondent/complainant. The appellant/opposite party produced and marked Exts. B1 to B5 documents. On completion of evidence the matter was heard by the District Commission.
6. It was found by the District Commission that the stand of the appellant was absolutely unjustified. The calf of the respondent was insured under the Calf Subsidy Programme introduced by the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Kerala. The intention of the scheme was to support the cattle breeders and owners. As per the scheme the intention of the Government was to give insurance coverage to cattle of 4 to 6 months of age for a period of 32 months, together with supply of cattle feed at subsidised rates. It was accordingly that the respondent’s calf was insured at the age of 6 months. Since the period of insurance was from 13.03.2015 to 12.03.2018, it was found that the respondent was entitled to claim the insurance amount. Therefore, the complaint has been allowed as stated above.
7. According to the counsel for the appellant, the District Commission has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the insurance cover was provided for a period of 32 months from the date of the policy. Though the period of the policy is specified as 13.03.2015 to 12.03.2018, it has been mentioned in the exclusion clause that the insurance cover would be applicable to calves up to the age of 32 months only. The calf of the respondent had died at the age of 38 months. Therefore the counsel seeks interference with the order of the District Commission.
8. The husband of the respondent who appeared in person refuted the contentions of the counsel for the appellant. According to him there was no clause in the policy limiting the coverage up to the age of 32 months of the calves. The appellant had defaulted supply of the cattle feed also and therefore there was serious deficiency in service on their part. He sought for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Heard. We have also perused the Lower Court Records called for by us. The appellant has produced Ext. B2 the Government Order dated 13.03.2015 issued by the Animal Husbandry Department, on the basis of which the insurance was provided. It is stated in Ext. B2 that the scheme was envisaged to be operative for a period of 32 months during which the calf breeders would be provided with cattle feed at subsidised rate as well as insurance. It was for the said purpose that the insurance policy was issued to the respondent herein. The inspection report Ext. B5 of Dr. G. Padmakumar shows that the cow had died of the disease mentioned by the respondent. It is also stated that the cow had exceeded the age of 32 months. The insurance policy had also been produced by the appellant as Ext. B1. On the face of Ext. B1 it is mentioned that the period of insurance was from 13.03.2015 to midnight of 12.03.2018. The counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on an exclusionary clause at page 4 of the policy which says, “cover up to 32 months of age”. In view of the above, according to the learned counsel the claim of the respondent ought to have been rejected by the District Commission.
10. As already noticed above, the insurance was provided by the appellant company as part of the implementation of a comprehensive scheme of the Department of Animal Husbandry for the welfare of the cattle breeders. The scheme was intended to provide incentives over a period of 32 months. Calves in the age group of 4 to 6 months were identified as beneficiaries of the scheme. The calf of the respondent was 6 months old when it was included in the scheme. The scheme was therefore meant to be in force for a period of 32 months from the age of the calf. The policy document shows that it was valid for a period from 13.03.2015 to 12.03.2018. Therefore, the contention that the policy was restricted up to 32 months age of the calf cannot be accepted.
11. Apart from the above, the insurance cover was provided to start a scheme that was meant to be operative for a period of 32 months with an obligation to provide insurance cover to the calf and also subsidised cattle feed. The appellant has not honoured their part of the above commitment. Ext. A4 shows that, no cattle feed had been provided to the respondent after December 2016. With respect to the insurance cover, though the validity of the policy is proclaimed to be from 13.03.2015 to 12.03.2018 the said condition is sought to be diluted by contending that the insurance cover was applicable to a calf only up to 32 months of age. Both the above contentions amount to unfair trade practice and serious deficiency in the service provided by the appellant. Having agreed with the Department of Animal Husbandry to provide insurance cover for a period of 32 months, the act of clandestinely including the exclusion clause at the bottom of page 4 in minute letters incapable of being noticed by even an educated person smacks of an utter lack of good faith. The uneducated cattle breeder cannot be expected to have taken note of and understood the import of the said clause. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the respondent who has represented his wife from alleging fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the appellant. This is a case in which a rustic cattle keeper has proceeded in the entire transaction implicitly believing that his calf was covered by the insurance provided by the appellant company. On the above commitment, there has been serious lapse on the part of the appellant. Therefore the unconscionable and one sided clause of exclusion cannot be permitted to give shelter to the unreasonable stand of the appellant.
12. We find that the District Commission has addressed the issue properly. We find no grounds to find fault with the District Commission for the reliefs granted to the respondent. The order of the District Commission is therefore confirmed.
For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed with Rs.5,000/- costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
jb
