State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager,Oriental Insurance ... vs Surendra Kumar Sahoo &Others; on 22 December, 2006
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK C.D. APPEAL NO.02 OF 1998 From an order dated 29.11.1997 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhadrak in C.D. Case No.33/15 of 1996 1. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., At/P.O/P.S- Mangalabag, Dist- Cuttack, At present office at Bajrakabati Road, Cuttack. 2. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Bhadrak, At/P.O/Dist- Bhadrak. Appellants. -Versus- 1. Surendra Kumar Sahoo, S/o. Ananta Charan Sahoo, Village- Nizchanta, P.O- Sukeleswar, P.S- Chandbali, Dist- Bhadrak. 2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, IDCO Tower, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda. 3. The Branch Manager, SBI, Chandbali, At/P.O- Chandbali, Dist- Bhadrak. 4. The Director of Animal Husbandary, Orissa, At/P.O/P.S- Mangalabag, Dist- Cuttack. 5. The Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Chandbali, At/P.O/P.S- Chandbali, Dist- Bhadrak. Respondents. For the Appellant : M/s. G.P. Dutta & Assoc. For the Respondent no.3: M/s. S.B. Acharya & Assoc. P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE R.K. PATRA, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER. O R D E R
DATE: - 22ND DECEMBER, 2006 The order of the District Forum directing the appellants to pay the insured amount of rupees 9,000/- for the cow bearing tag no.3708 to the State Bank of India, Chandbali is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
2. The respondent no.1 filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants for non-payment of insurance amount in respect of five numbers of cows purchased by him on being financed by the State Bank of India. He bought the cows with the help of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon respondent no.5. After tag numbers were allotted to the cows, he got them insured with the appellants.
Under the insurance policy, the appellants are liable to pay the insured amount in the event of the death of the insured cows. As no payment was made following the death, he filed the complaint.
3. In the District Forum, non-payment of the insured amount in respect of cow bearing tag no.3708 was the only issue. The appellants resisted the complaint on the ground of violation of the policy condition. According to them, the exclusion clause of the policy stipulated that it does not cover death directly or indirectly due to or arising out of disease contacted prior to commencement of the risk. The District Forum overruled the objection of the appellants on the ground that the cow died due to non-supply of medicine at proper time.
4. The respondent no.1 in paragraph-4 of the complaint has in clear and unmistakable terms stated that instead of purchasing milching cows, the financing authority purchased the cows which were diseased ridden and were at advanced stage. From this averment the conclusion is irresistible that by the time policy was taken the cow bearing tag no.3708 was suffering from disease and as such the same could not have been insured. The claim is thus hit by the exclusion clause mentioned above. The District Forum has clearly lost sight of the aforesaid facts.
5. In the result, the impugned order is set-aside. The complaint filed by the respondent no.1 stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.
SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER, I agree.