OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAGATSINGHPUR

PRESENT:-   SRI S.N.MISHRA,PRESIDENT.

A N D

SRI   B.C. SWAIN, MEMBERS.

MRS. M.M.RATH, MEMBERS.

Consumer Complaint No.108 of 2009

Date of Filing: -28.08.2009

Date of Judgment: -23.11.09

Sri  Salila Mohapatra

s/o-Krushna ch Mohapatra

vill-Nuagarh

Po-Paradeep

Ps-Paradeep

Dist-Jagatsinghpur

…………………………complainant

Versus

1.     Senior Manager

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

City Branch Office,

N.K.House

Station square

Bhubaneswar

2.     Veterinary Asst.Surgeon

Kujanga

At/Po/Ps-kujanga

Dist-Jagatsinghpur

3.     Chief District Veterinary Officer

At/Po/Dist-Jagatsinghpur

…………………….Opp.parties

For complainant :- Sri J.M.Biswal , Advocate.

Opp.party No.1:- Exparte

For O.P.No.2 & 3 :- Dr.S.C. Sahoo, A.V.A.S.,Kujanga

In short the case of the complainant is that he has insured  his cow worth Rs.10,000/- with O.P.No.1 under pilot scheme of the Govt. under the instruction  of O.P.No.2 & 3  vide cattle insurance  policy bearing No.345304/47/2009/185 dtd.31.01.2008 on payment of Rs.876/- towards premium covering the period from 31.01.2008 to 30.01.2011. the insured cow stood ear tagged vide No.OIC-153359 to be identified as an  insured cow  as per the scheme. Said insured cow died on 16.06.2008 at 5 P.M. despite extended with adequate and appropriate treatment. The death of the insured cow  inclusive of postmortem report submitted with O.P.No.1 (Insurance)  since 17.06.2008 but the insurance  company has not settled the claim. Hence he sustained mental agony with financial loss and seeked redressal within scope of this Act.

In response to such allegation of the complaint as stated above , though the O.P.No.1 (insurance) has been intimated vide Registered post it remained silent and did not like to take participation in disposal of this proceeding hence proceeded exparte  in accordance to law.

In their joint statement both the O.P.No.2 & 3 (veterinary Deptt.)  have admitted the cause of the complainant and also specifically submitted as have intimated the O.P.No.1 (insurance)  as to eventuality of the insured cow belonging to complainant.

Out of such pleadings of both the parties it seems to be an admitted  case that complainant’s cow  stood insured under pilot scheme of the Govt. vide No.345304/47/2009/185 and complainant has paid premium  of Rs.876/- covering the period from 31.01.2008 to 31.01.2011 (the insurance  policy marked-1) . therefore  complainant can not but be said to have not inherited the status  of a consumer defined U/s.2(1) d (ii) of the  Act as  have hired the services of O.P.No.1 (Insurance)  for consideration . the insured cow seems to have  been  ear tagged vide No. OIC-153359 for identification as is revealed out of policy (marked-1). It is also admitted that the insured cow died on 16.06.2008 during active force of policy from 31.01.2008 to 30.01.2001. the postmortem report death certificate and other relating papers are admittedly submitted with O.P.No.1 (Insurance) since 17.06.2008 as is  confessed and reported by the O.P.No.2 & 3 (marked-2) it is not known as to why the O.P.No.1 failed to settle the claim in terms of the contract, thereby,  the complainant beneficiary has to knock it’s door time and again  and lastly seeked redressal at the cost of this hard  earned money  and wastage of precious  time within meaning of this Act. The services of  the O.P.No.1 (Insurance) has been hired by complainant  on payment of premium in terms of contract under a pilot scheme of the Govt. but not gratuitous. So  it can not but be said that complainant for such  deficiency in service read with unfair trade practice of the O.P.No.1 in non setting the legal claim in  terms on contract has not been subjected to suffer mentally and financially so that his prayer for  compensation and cost of this proceeding be held unjust. The sole principle of insurance rests on good faith and in the instant case the O.P.No.1 (insurance)  despite receipt of the notice relating this proceeding through Regd.post with A.D. did not like to appear and submit  it’s reasonable explanation as to real  cause of non settlement of the claim of complainant ,  thereby, this  forum is impressed to form an idea  that the O.P.No.1 (Insurance) has accepted the case of the complainant and it has nothing to place  in rebuttal to the allegation as such shall not hesitate to  comply whatever order be passed herewith. In not setting  the legal claim of the complainant in terms of contract, the  O.P.No.1 (insurance) has not only caused deficiency in service read with unfair trade practice  but also has given a challenge to the pilot scheme sponsored by the Govt. in aid of helpless complainant  that sustained a serious set back. Therefore a strong case U/s.2(1) (g) & (o) read with 2 (1) (r )  is writ large  within meaning of this Act against O.P.No.1 beyond  doubt entitling complainant to be compensated adequately in the ends of natural justice with cost  of this proceeding . the other O.Ps. are exonerated of any charge as no case is made out against them.

ORDER
In the result this complaint is allowed exparte against O.P.No.1 with  cost and compensation at Rs.500/- exonerating other O.Ps. of any charge. The O.P.No.1 (insurance) besides  aforesaid cost is directed to pay  the claimed  amount Rs.10,000/- to complainant within 30 days from the date of this order to avoid payment of interest at the rate of  9% per annum on total decreed award for delayed payment.

Serve a copy of this  order on  O.P.No.1 (Insurance ) at the cost of complainant for information and immediate compliance.

Pronounced in the open forum on this 23rd  day of November,2009.

Smt.M.M.Rath            B.C.Swain                     S.N.Mishra

MEMBER                  MEMBER                     PRESIDENT