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.137 of 2009
Date of Filing: -28.08.2009
Date of Judgment: -23.11.2009
Gaganbehari Rout
s/o-Gaurahari Rout
vill-Nuagarh
Po/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/Ps/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. 31.01.08 on payment of Rs.438/- towards premium covering the period from 31.1.08 to 30.01.2011. the insured cow stood ear tagged vide No.OIC 153375 to be identified as an insured cow as per the scheme. Said insured cow died on 03.03.2008 at 11.45 A.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 03.03.08 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 complainant 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.438/- covering the period from 31.01.08 to 30.01.2011 (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 153375 for identification as is revealed out of policy(marked-1). It is also admitted that the insured cow died on 03.03.08 during active force of policy from 31.01.08 to 20.01.2011. the postmortem report , death certificate and other relating papers are admittedly submitted with O.P.No.1 (Insurance) since 03.03.08 as is confessed and reported by the O.P.No.2 & 3 (mark-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 his 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 of contract has not been subjected to suffer mentally and financially 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 nothing to place in rebuttal to the allegation as such shall not hesitate to comply what-ever order be passed herewith. In non 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 woith 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 claim 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
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.137 of 2009
Date of Filing: -28.08.2009
Date of Judgment: -23.11.2009
Gaganbehari Rout
s/o-Gaurahari Rout
vill-Nuagarh
Po/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/Ps/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. 31.01.08 on payment of Rs.438/- towards premium covering the period from 31.1.08 to 30.01.2011. the insured cow stood ear tagged vide No.OIC 153375 to be identified as an insured cow as per the scheme. Said insured cow died on 03.03.2008 at 11.45 A.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 03.03.08 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 complainant 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.438/- covering the period from 31.01.08 to 30.01.2011 (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 153375 for identification as is revealed out of policy(marked-1). It is also admitted that the insured cow died on 03.03.08 during active force of policy from 31.01.08 to 20.01.2011. the postmortem report , death certificate and other relating papers are admittedly submitted with O.P.No.1 (Insurance) since 03.03.08 as is confessed and reported by the O.P.No.2 & 3 (mark-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 his 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 of contract has not been subjected to suffer mentally and financially 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 nothing to place in rebuttal to the allegation as such shall not hesitate to comply what-ever order be passed herewith. In non 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 woith 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 claim 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
Tags: Oriental Insurance