Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs ARVIND KUMAR OF HISSAR

THIS appeal by the appellant Insurance Company is directed against the order of the District Forum, Hissar directing the payment of Rs. 33,442/- to the insured complainant-respondent.

SHRI Arvinder Kumar, complainant had apparently set up a new poultry farm in Village Bass and he took out insurance for 4000 poultry birds with appellant Company at a premium of Rs. 1/- per bird per annum with effect from 21st of January, 1990 for a period of one year. As is not unusual the said insured birds became victims of an epidemic poultry disease in the end of March, 1990 and stared dying en-masse. The complainant telegraphically informed the appellant Insurance Company about the dangerous condition of the chickens on the 22nd of March, 1990. There is a Veterinary Civil Hospital at Village Bass and the complainant got the postmortem of the dead birds done from the doctor posted thereat. However, it was pointed out that some of the dead birds could not undergo such an examination, though he repeatedly informed the Insurance Company about the fell results of the epidemic. His basic grievance was that the appellant Company did not at all cooperate in the processing of his claim for compensation and ultimately sought to wriggle out of their liability by totally repudiating the same. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac was claimed on his behalf. On notice being issued to the appellant a detailed reply to the complaint was filed, the salient features of which alone merit notice. According to the same, on receiving the telegram from the insurer, the Company deputed two of its officers to visit the poultry farm on 23rd of March, 1990 and it was their case that they could find only 18 live chickens thereat. According to the Company the birds at the farm had earlier been loaded in two trucks and taken to Delhi for sale. So far as the claim of conducting the post-mortem of the dead birds the plea was that Dr. Malik who was posted there was on leave on the relevant dates. Allegations of even false post-mortem reports having been obtained were sought to be raised. In sum the case was that the claim was false and concocted and the same was rejected and the matter was treated as having been closed.

In the replication filed by the complainant, he reiterated the allegations in the complaint assertively and also repeated the quantum of the financial claim.

THE District Forum in its order under appeal noticed that there was no dispute about the factum of the Insurance Policy Annexure ''A'' On the basis of the documentary record, it came to the conclusion that appeallants have themselves admitted about the purchase of 2000 chickens on the 16.1.1990 and there was credible evidence of the subsequent purchase of another 2000 broiler chicks vide Annexure ''D'' dated the 31st of January, 1990. THE complainant''s stand of purchasing a rearing 4000 chickens was held to be established. With regard to the appellant Company''s stand that the post-mortem reports of the concerned doctor were concocted, it was expressly noticed that the said Dr. Malik had put in a categoric affidavit that during the relevant dates he was not on leave and was infact on duty at the Veterminary Hospital and had actually conducted the post-mortem of the dead bird. THE District Forum further recorded that there was not even an attempt to contradict the affidavit of the doctor and thus inevitably rejected the basic stand of the appellant Company with regard to the postmortem reports being fake. Holding that as many as 2574 birds were actually produced before the doctor in accordance with the Insurance Policy terms it found that the rejection of the complainant''s claim was wholly unjustified. Consequently the complaint was allowed and the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 33,442/- was directed. Mr. S.S. Aulakh, the learned Counsel for the appellant was inevitably half-hearted in pressing the appeal in face of the clear cut finding arrived at by the District Forum. It was first sought to be contended that because the appellant Insurance Company had repudiated its liability, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the claim. Apparently unable to lay any serious challenge to the merits of the case, this somewhat tenuous legal objection was sought to be raised.

THE aforesaid contention has only to be noticed and rejected in view of the recent orders of the National Commission, in ''Life Insurance Corpn. of India, A.P. v. Shri Bhavanam Srinivas Reddy'', II (1991) C.P.J. Page 189 (NC), the specific issue herein was pointedly raised and decided in the following terms: "Thus, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Statutory Redressal Forums to conduct an adjudication into the complaint is in no way affected by the unilateral repudiation of the contract of insurance by the insurer. In the decision rendered by this Commission in the New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. M/s. Vipro Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Revision Petition No. 12 of 1990 [Reported in I (1991) CPJ 335 (NC)] it has been held that the mere fact the insurer had repudiated his liability in respect of the claim put forward by the insured does not operate to take away the jurisdiction of the Redressal Forums constituted under the Act to investigate into the complaint filed by the insured." THE aforesaid enunciation would be itself conclude the matter, but reference may also be made to the recent order of this Commission in ''R.S. Oil and General Mills (P) Ltd. Sonepat v. THE National Insurance Company Limited, Calcutta & Others'' decided on 21st of August, 1991. THErein after an exhaustive discussion on principle and precedent, it has been held as under: - "To conclude the answer to the question posed at the very outset is rendered in the negative and it is held that the mere unilateral rejection of the insured party''s claim by the Insurance Company does not per se operate as a jurisdictional bar to seek redress before the Forums under the Act."

In the light of the above the basic contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant must necessarily be rejected. The only other argument on merits was that infact no post-mortem reports were conducted on the dead birds. This contention is patently without merit on the record. As noticed by the District Forum itself there is an unequivocal affidavit of Dr. Malik who admittedly was the doctor at the Veterinary Hospital at Bass. He has stated in no uncertain terms that on the relevant dates he was not on leave and was infact on duty thereon. He has stood firmly behind the postmortem report which he had issued. There is not the least reason to doubt his unontradicted testimony on the point. The District Forum has noticed that infact hardly any evidence was brought to rebut this impeccable testimony. The self-serving report of the officers of the Company cannot possibly stand against this independent and non-partition version. The solitary argument on merits has thus to be also rejected. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, there is patently no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.