Rajkumar Agrawal vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.

THIS is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arising out of the order dated 12.5.2004, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the ''District Forum'') dismissing the complaint.

BRIEF facts as averred in the complaint are that the complainant Rajkumar Agarwal is a dairy owner and he purchased 13 cows for Rs. 20,000 each with the loan obtained from the State Bank of India. Two cows bearing ear tag Nos. NIA 21515 and NIA 17282 were included in the aforesaid cattle and were insured for Rs. 20,000 each. The cow bearing tag No. 21515 died on 20.9.2002 and the other cow beairng tag No. 17282 died on 11.10.2002. It is averred that the paper relating to the treatment of the cows, post-mortem report and Panchnama was given to the Bank, respondent No. 2 in original and acknowledgement obtained. However, the respondent insurer repudiated the complainant''s claim on the ground that the death of the cattle and their insurance is doubtful. O.P. No. 1 insurer resisted the complaint denying all the averments of the complainant regarding deficiency in service. It was averred in the written version that a livestock insurance policy No. 540300/47/02/00314 was issued in favour of Rajkumar Agarwal the appellant for the period from 8.7.2002 to 7.7.2003. As per terms of the policy the complainant was under an obligation to give immediate notice to the insurer regarding illness and/or death of the cattle and to afford the insurer an opportunity to inspect the carcass by not removing or cutting or parting with it to enable the insuer to verify the identity of the animal. It was further averred that the cows in question were not insured by them and that no intimation regarding the illness of cattle or their death was furnished to them. Thus, the insurer was deprived of the opportunity to verify the identity of the cattle. This is violation of policy condition Nos. 4 and 7. It was further averred that the tag Nos. have not been mentioned in the treatment papers.

O.P. No. 2 also resisted the complaint and averred in the written version that the bank had forwarded the papers to O.P. No. 1 immediately after receiving the same but the O.P. No. 1 had repudiated the claim as they found the death as well as the insurance of the cattle to be suspicious and not because of any delay on part of the O.P. No. 2 in sending the documents.

LEARNED District Forum had dismissed the complaint. Hence, the complainant had preferred this appeal. Final arguments heard. Record perused.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective and hence the order passed by the District Forum is grossly misconceived, perverse and contrary to law. It was further submitted that the learned District Forum was mistaken in not scrutinizing the Surveyor''s report properly, wherein the Surveyor has mentioned the date of his visit to the appellant''s place and that of submission of his report. Hence, the learned District Forum miserably failed to appraise the delay on the part of respondent No. 1 in repudiating the claim of the appellant. He further submitted that appellant had submitted all the documents to respondent No. 2. Timely information was given to the parties but the Surveyor visited the place after more than 5 months. He prayed for setting aside the order of the District Forum and for allowing the appeal. Learned Counsel for respondents reiterated their stand taken by them before the District Forum. It is noted that after receiving the claim form, the respondent No. 1 had appointed Mr. R.K. Agarwal as investigator and who filed his report dated 28.6.2003 wherein it is mentioned that the said investigator visited the appellant''s place on 16.3.2003, 2.6.2003, 7.6.2003 and 26.6.2003 though the cattle died on 20.9.2002 and on 11.10.2002. Obviously, the investigator visited the place after a long gap of merely 4 to 5 months after the alleged death of the cattle. However, it was the specific allegation of the respondent No. 1 that the complainant failed to give intimation to the said respondent regarding illness or death of the cows. The investigator had found the death of the cattle to be suspicious and hence, the claim was repudiated by the insurer. The insurer had also intimated the complainant that as there was violation of the policy, no amount was payable.

IN the circumstances, it is very difficult to conclude that there was much delay on the part of the insurer in repudiating the claim. Hence, we are of the opinion that as the insurer has repudiated the claim after due deliberations and proper application of mind as there was violation of policy condition, it cannot be said that there was any negligence on their part. However, regarding the allegation of delay, it is noted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant had given intimation to the insurer. It does not appear from the record as to when the claim form and other documents filed by the complainant with respondent No. 2 bank, were forwarded to the insurer.

IN view of the observations made herein above, we are of the opinion that the order of District Forum is based on sound reasoning and there is no reason for interference in the same. The impugned order is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed with the observation that the complainant may seek any other legal remedy as may be available to him. Appeal dismissed.