N .K. Vaidya, Member - This is an appeal filed by complainant against the order dated 27-9-1996 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seoni in their Case No. 15/96. - wherein the District Forum, Seoni dismissed his complaint on the ground that the terms and conditions No.4. 5 & 6 having been violated by the complainant and the medical certificate of death being without seal of the hospital, the insurance company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

2. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record of the case.

3. In the investigation report of Dr. M.L. Choube, and in the affidavit of Mr. D.K. Chouhan, Branch Manager it has been said that there has been violation of clauses 3, 5 & 6 of the policy and in the reply of the Insurance Company it has been stated that there has been Violation of clauses 4,5 & 6. Anyway the clauses No.3. 4. 5 and 6 are as under:(Matter in other language).

LAILAJ BIMARI KAY KARAN KAST PIDIT JANWAR KO PEDA SE MUKT KARNE KE LIYE YOGYA PASHU CHIKITSAK OW AHA JARI KIYE GAYE PARMAN-PATRA KE ADIIAR PAR JANWAR KO MARNA AVASHYAK SAMJHE JANE YA KANUNI TAUR PAR PARTISTHAPIT AOHIKARI KI AGY ANUSAR MARE JANE KO CHODKAR JANBUJHKAR JANWAR KO WADH KARNE KE KARAN:

(K) VAYU-MARG YA SAMUNDRI MARG DWARA LE JANE KE DAURAN.

(KH) JANWAR KE RAKHNE KE STHAN SE 10 KILOMETER SE ADHIK DURI TAK STHAL MARG DWARA LE JANE KE DAURAN.

(GA) JANWAR KE NA RAKHNE KE STHAN SE 50 KILOMETER BHI ADHIK DURI TAK CHALAKAR LE JANE KE KARAN.

ASAM KE LAKHIMPUR AUR SHIVSAGAR JILE KE JANWARON KE SANDARBH ME PILYURONIMONIA KE KARAN.

NAMANKIT JANWAR KI CHORI YA MUPHT BIKRI.

4. Report of the Investigator does not say how and why there has been violation of which of the conditions quoted above. It simply says that there was a change of place, without prior intimation/permission of the company and the animal was not properly cared and treated. Change of place without prior intimation is not prohibited under any clause whatsoever. How and why the treatment was not proper is also not explained in the report of the Investigator. The Investigator has not verified the period of illness or the treatment given. How does he say that this condition could have been timely detected and is curable is not known. Who are the persons on whose evidence, or what are the documents on which he has based this report is also not known. What wrong was committed by Dr. Kapoor in conducting post-mortem at village Khamkhareli, has not been explained. Is post-mortem at the place of death prohibited in the terms and conditions of policy? The report of the Investigator does not establish at all as to how and why the claim deserved to have been repudiated. If the post-mortem report contains legibly written name and designation of the doctor, absence of official seal does not make that document is fake.

5. As such, we allow this appeal, set-aside the order of the District Forum and order that the respondent shall pay to the appellant an amount of sum assured being Rs. 10.000/-. Respondent shall also pay Rs. 1000/- as cost of proceedings to the appellant.

Appeal allowed.