Tulsiram Patelnt vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint No. 15/2005 dismissing the complaint.

COMPLAINANT has averred that he purchased one Jersey Cow after obtaining loan of Rs. 15,000 from the State Bank of India, Saraipali under the Diary Plus Scheme. An amount of Rs. 810 was paid towards premium and insurance cover from 2.7.2004 to 1.7.2004 obtained. Identification Tag No. NICRIP 25493 was also fixed on the cattle insured. The said cow fell ill and died on 31.7.2004 despite treatment by Dr. Choudhary. Claim submitted to the O.P. was repudiated on the ground that the cattle died within 15 days of commencement of risk and was excluded under terms of the policy. O.P. -the insurer in written reply has stated that the said cattle was insured for the period from 21.7.2004 to 20.7.2005 and as such the death having occurred within 15 days of commencement of risk, the claim was not liable to be paid.

QUESTION for consideration is the date of commencement of risk under the policy and whether the insurer O.P. is deficient in service for repudiating the claim.

COMPLAINANT has filed copy of a consolidated certificate of insurance No. 36276 proposal and certificate by the Veterinary Surgeon dated 2.7.2004. Said document is signed by Dr. N. Choudhury Vety. Asstt. Surgeon on 2.7.2004. Said certificate shows that two cattle bearing identification tag Nos. 25493 and 25494 were insured for Rs. 15,000 each for a total premium of Rs. 1,620. As per the said certificate, the cattle is insured from 2.7.2004 to 1.7.2005. On the other hand, O.P. has filed a copy of the policy No. 19500/47/04/88497. The said policy document tallies with the aforementioned document filed by the complainant except date of commencement of risk, as 21.7.2005 to 20.7.2006.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant -complainant submitted that the consolidated certificate of insurance signed by Dr. Choudhary and bearing the seal of financier, the State Bank of India, is the authentic policy document. Necessary format is provided by the respondent -O.P. It was also submitted that the ear -tags were provided to Dr. Choudhary, which clearly shows that he was authorized to insure and issue the policy documents on behalf of the O.P. It was also submitted that the said Dr. Choudhury was the agent of the O.P. Therefore, the date of commencement of risk should be considered as 2.7.2004.

ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the O.P. prayed for affirming the impugned order. It was stated that the document purportedly signed by Dr. Choudhary could not in any way be treated as the policy document. It is not signed by any authorized person on behalf of the O.P. and, therefore, is in no way binding on the O.P. Therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. It was submitted by learned Counsel for respondent that the insurer/respondent did not receive the amount of premium till 21.7.2004. Therefore, there is no question of issue of policy by the insurer. The case law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra and Others,I (2001) ACC 317 (SC)=AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1197, was also referred to the said case law relates to a case in which a cheque was issued for payment of first premium of a policy but was dishonoured by the drawee Bank for want of funds. Therefore, the insurer was not held liable for payment of assured amount. In our opinion the said case law is totally different from the facts and circumstances of the present case and, therefore, does not help the respondent/insurer in any way. In the present case it is noted that the certificate of insurance was issued by Dr. Chaudhury (as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs) after receiving the payment of premium from the appellant. The said Dr. Chaudhury not only received the payment of premium but also fixed the identification tags on the cattle and issued certificate of insurance. The said Dr. Chaudhury is the authorized Veterinary Doctor by the respondent and his name appears in the subsequent policy issued by the insurer also. Therefore, in our opinion the payment of premium was made on 2.7.2004 as per the certificate of insurance and the cattle was also tagged on the said date. In the circumstances policy ought to have been issued covering risk from 2.7.2004 itself irrespective of the date of issuance of policy. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for respondent cannot be accepted. Learned Counsel for respondent also referred the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Govind Singh, III (2003) CPJ 473. In the said citation the premium of buffalo purchased in June, 1999 was not sent by the Bank to the insurer and, therefore, it was held that the insurer was not liable. The matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Subodh, 1996 (1) M.P.W.N. 221, was also referred. The present complaint is clearly distinguished from the above instance where the amount of premium was not actually paid or tendered to the insurer.

WE have carefully gone through the record and both the documents. It is not disputed that the cattle in question was tagged by Dr. Choudhary whose name appears even in the policy document produced by the insurer. O.P. has not denied the authority of Dr. Choudhary for tagging, nor are the tags disowned by the O.P. Therefore, it can be assumed that the said Dr. Choudhary was acting as an agent on authority from the O.P. Otherwise, how else the said Dr. Choudhary could have procured tags from the O.P.

UNDER the circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the document dated 2.7.2004 is the certificate of insurance and the risk cover commenced from 2.7.2004 to 1.7.2005. Undisputedly, the death of the insured cattle occurred on 31.7.2004, after 15 days of 2.7.2004. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the O.P. cannot be held to be justified.

IN view of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) only to the complainant as assured amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint. O.P. shall also bear his own cost and also pay Rs. 2,000 as cost of complainant and cost of appeal to the complainant. Above amounts shall be payable within two months of this order and shall carry interest at 12% per annum in case of default of payment. Appeal allowed.