The death of the cow within 15 days from the commencement of the risk due to "Acute Ruminal Tympanitis; death due to asphyxie" is not a "disease contracted" within the meaning of the policy condition and therefore the complainant is entitled to make a claim.

Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., against which an award has been passed by the District Forum, has filed this appeal. The complainant had taken an insurance policy from the opposite party on 4.5.1993 in respect of two of his cows each for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. One of the cows died on 5.5.1993 at 11.30 a.m. The complainant made a claim with the Insurance Company. But the Insurance Company repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint has been filed.

2. The opposite parties contended inter alia that as per the conditions in the policy, if the cow died on account of a disease contracted within 15 days from the date of the policy, then, no insurance claim can be made. The insurance was taken, in this case, on 4.5.1993 and the cow died on the next day i.e., 5.5.1993 due to a disease, and therefore the complainant cannot make a claim. It is further contended that though the claimant was owning 25 cows, he had taken insurance only for the said two cows and from this it could be seen that the deceased cow might have been suffering from a disease even at the time of insurance policy, but suppressing the same the insurance has been taken. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for the insurance amount.

3. The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence, took the view that the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties is unreasonable and that amounts to deficiency in service on their part and therefore the complainant can make a claim. It passed an award for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from 7.5.1993 being the date of repudiation till payment. It has also directed the opposite parties to pay a cost of Rs. 250/-.

4. In the appeal now, it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/ opposite parties that the order of the District Forum is against the evidence and probabilities of the case and therefore it is liable to be set aside. There is a condition in the policy which reads thus :

“Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary it is hereby declared and agreed that no claim in respect of animal(s) covered by this policy shall be payable in the event of death of animal(s) due to diseases contracted within 15 days from the date of commencement of the risk.”

Now it is common case that the cow died on the very next day of the date of insurance policy. As per the post-mortem certificate Ex. A-4, the cause of death was "Acute Ruminal Tympanitis; death due to asphyxie". Rather strangely, the District Forum has stated that the cow died not because of any disease and therefore there is nothing preventing a claim being made. It appears, according to the District Forum, "Acute Ruminal Tympanitis death due to asphyxie" does not indicate a disease. The dictionary meaning of the word "disease" is "any disorder of body or mind". Therefore, it is rather ununderstandable in the District Forum saying that the cow did not die of any disease. Either the said disease had been contracted soon after the policy since the cow died on the next day itself, or it should have been contracted even prior to the policy. If it had been contracted prior to the policy, then, it amounts to suppression of material facts by the complainant while taking the policy. In any event, the complainant will not be entitled to make a claim. Clearly therefore, the order of the District Forum is not correct and hence it is liable to be set aside.

5. In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Minority view :

Pulavar V.S. Kandasamy, Member—I regret that I do not agree with the majority order.

2. The facts of the case are furnished in the majority order.

3. The fact that the deceased cow was insured and the insurance policy was in force at the time of the death of the cow is