IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of July, 2016
Filed on 06.12.2014
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.331/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. Bini, W/o Biju 1. The United India Insurance Co.
Pallimuttom, Aroor Village Ltd., Represented by its Manager
Aroor Panchayath, Aroor Mullackal, Alappuzha
Cherthala (By Adv. Hemalatha)
(By Adv. N. Ratheesh)
2. Veterinary Surgeon
Veterinary Dispensary
Aroor Panchayath, Aroor, Cherthala
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant had insured two cows with the first opposite party and remitted the insurance premium of Rs.1,163/-through Canara Bank, Aroor Branch on 20.9.2012. One of the insured cow becomes unable to stand up due to acute laminitis. According to the complainant, since the cow is insured with the opposite party she is entitled to get the insurance claim. Even though she approached the 1st opposite party many times, the 1st opposite party has not shown any earnest efforts to process the claim amount. Thereafter the complainant filed a petition before the Legal Service Authority, but in vain. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The first opposite party filed version is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party never issued a policy to the complainant as alleged and hence the existence of a valid policy is denied by the opposite party. This opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. No mental agony is caused to the complainant by the act of this opposite party. So the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The 2nd opposite party treated the insured cow bearing Tag No.3061473 of the complainant. The cow is suffering from acute laminitis and the 2nd opposite party has requested the first opposite party to issue the permanent total disability claim to the complainant, but the claim has not been given by the first opposite party. The claim form has received on 15.8.2013 and it has been sent to the insurance company.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. First opposite party examined as RW1. No documents marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. Considering the allegations of the parties the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
6. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that she had insured two cows with the first opposite party by paying the premium amount of Rs.1,163/- through Canara Bank. One of the insured cow sustained disability. The complainant has taken necessary steps for getting the claim, but the opposite party has not taken any earnest steps for issuing the claim. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. Ext.A1 is the proposal form, Ext.A2(a) is the true copy of paying slip dated 20.9.2012, Ext.A2(b) is the true copy of letter forwarded by the Veterinary Surgeon to the first opposite party dated 24.9.2012, Ext.A2(c ) is the true copy of the certificate of insurance issued to the complainant dated 27.9.2012, Ext.A3 is the letter forwarded by the Veterinary Surgeon to the first opposite party dated 24.9.2012, Ext.A4 is the letter issued by the Pattanakad Diary Development Officer, Ext.A5 is the true copy of the complaint filed before the Legal Service Committee by the complainant, Ext.A6 is the letter issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant dated 29.12.2014, Ext.A7 is the ear tag (ADCP No.3061473), Ext.A8 is the copy of letter issued by the Veterinary Surgeon to the first opposite party, Ext.A9 is the copy of letter issued by the Veterinary Surgeon to the first opposite party dated 3.8.3013, and Ext.A10 is the details of Gosuraksha Livestock Insurance Scheme. First opposite party was examined as RW. No documents were marked.
8. The specific case of the complainant is that she had insured two cows with the first opposite party after remitting the premium amount of Rs.1,163/- through Canara Bank. According to the opposite party they never issued insurance policy to the complainant as alleged by the complainant. In order to substantiate the allegation of the complainant she has produced Ext.A2 series documents. From Ext.A2(a) it can be seen that an amount of Rs.1,163/- remitted through Canara Bank. From Ext.A2(c ) shows that the total amount for insuring two cow is Rs.1,163/-. Ext.A2(b) is the letter dated 24.9.2012 given by the Veterinary Surgeon, Aroor to the United India Insurance Company. When RW1 was cross examined, they denied the issuance of the policy stating that Ext.A1 is only the proposal form does not bearing seal of first opposite party and hence it is not valid. But in Ext.A2(c ) certificate of insurance – Gosuraksha Scheme issued to the complainant bearing the seal of United India Insurance Company dated 27.9.2012. Hence the contention of the opposite party does not sustain. On verifying the Ext.A2 series documents, we came to understand that a sum of Rs.1,163/- has paid by the complainant to the opposite party for insuring her two cow and she has a valid insurance with the opposite party from 27.9.2012 for a period of one year. In Ext.A2(c ) insurance certificate, it is also stated that in case of permanent total disability of the insured cow, the complainant is entitled to get 75% of the sum insured. From Exts.A8 and A9 it can be clearly seen that the insured cow bearing tag No.3061473 is suffering from acute laminitis and it unable to stand up. From these documents it is clear that the insured cow with Tag No.3061473 is having disability. Hence the complainant proved her case with supporting documents. Therefore she is entitled to get permanent total disability claim ie. 75% to the sum insured and the sum insured is Rs.40,000/-. The denial of insurance claim on the part of the first opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. On a perusal of the version and other documents we cannot see any deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. So we cannot hold the 2nd opposite party liable for any deficiency in service. The first opposite party failed to provide the insurance claim in spite of repeated requests and this caused much mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant is to be compensated.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The first opposite party is directed to pay the permanent total disability claim Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization to the complainant. The first opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Bini Biju (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Proposal form
Ext.A2 (a) - True copy of paying slip dated 20.9.2012
Ext.A2(b) - True copy of letter forwarded by the Veterinary Surgeon to the first opposite
party dated 24.9.2012
Ext.A2(c ) - True copy of the certificate of insurance issued to the complainant dated
27.9.2012
Ext.A3 - Letter forwarded by the Veterinary Surgeon to the first opposite party dated
24.9.2012
Ext.A4 - Letter issued by the Pattanakad Diary Development Officer
Ext.A5 - Petition filed before the Legal Service Authority Cherthala
Ext.A6 - Letter dated 29.12.2014 of Vetenery Surgeon
Ext.A7 - Ear tag (ADCP No.3061473)
Ext.A8 - Copy of letter issued by the Veterinary Surgeon to the first opposite party
Ext.A9 - Copy of letter issued by the Veterinary Surgeon to the first opposite party dated 3.8.3013
Ext.A10 - Details of Gosuraksha Livestock Insurance Scheme
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Bindhu. B. (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S/F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
