IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Companies should not repudiate bonafide claims.

J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—Sh. Puran Ram Rawat, the complainant in this case purchased three buffaloes and one cow and got the same insured with the Tata AIG Insurance Company Limited- the OP on 26.03.2008 for all risks. Their tag numbers were given and the buffalo in question was insured for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and its tag number was B05829. The agent of the Insurance Company fixed the tags immediately at the time of insurance in their ears. During the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, on 30.08.2008, the above said buffalo in question, fell ill and passed away. The intimation was given to the Veterinary Medical Officer Haldina. The postmortem of the said buffalo was got done in the presence of the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim. The complainant filed a complaint for recovery of Rs.30,000/- for insurance claim, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses and interest from 20.11.2008.

2. The Opposite Party filed reply before the District Forum. They denied all these allegations. It was averred that the complainant has not sent any information about the death of the buffalo to the Company as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any amount from the Insurance Company.

3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.30,000/- towards the Insurance Policy, Rs.3,000/- towards compensation, within a period of 30 days otherwise it will carry interest @ 15%.

4. The State Commission by a cryptic order, presided over by Mr. Justice Ashok Parihar, as usual, dismissed the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/OP vehemently argued that they did not execute any policy in this regard. He argued that all these documents are fictitious. He further argued that the Lower Court’s file be requisitioned and enquiry be held in this regard. He also invited my attention towards the order passed by this Commission on 25.04.2011 which is reproduced as follows:-

“Mr. K. L. Nandwani seeks to press in support of his submission that the complainant has not taken any insurance of any buffalo from the petitioner-insurance company at any point of time. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum had wrongly recorded that the buffalo of the complainant was insured and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured for that purpose”.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant has produced various documents which were also produced before the District Forum. The first printed document is under the head “Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rajasthan Livestock Development Board, Schedule Of Cattle Proposed For Insurance”. It reveals that a number of cattle were insured by the OP, which also bears the signatures of Veterinary Officer, dealing officer, as well as Dr. Sita Ram Verma. The buffalo in question also finds mention therein at Sr. No. 2. The IDV has been shown as Rs.30,000/- for which charges in the sum of Rs.300/- were obtained. This document runs into two pages and it mentions about various cattle of different villagers. There is another document signed by the complainant wherein request was made to the Veterinary Officer to get the Postmortem of his dead buffalo conducted. Then there is another one more important document i.e. the Postmortem report, issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Animal Husbandry Department, Veterinary Necropsy Protocol (Post-Mortem Report) Dated 30.08.2008 which clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions that the postmortem was conducted at the request of Surveyor Tata AIG – Mr. Prashant in regard to the buffalo belonging to the complainant. Thereafter, there is report of Veterinary doctor in Hindi language. This letter was written to Sh. Akhilesh Acharya, Assistant Manager, Urban, TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd., C- Scheme, Jaipur, wherein it was mentioned that as per telephonic conversation, he is required to send the copy of the policy.

7. I have perus