Insurance company told to pay Rs 25k for cow’s ‘sudden’ death | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
May 24, 2017-Wednesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Insurance company told to pay Rs 25k for cow’s ‘sudden’ death

Harassed at the hands of insurance companies due to rejection of claims of dead animals, dairy farmers are now approaching the district consumer disputes redressal forum to get relief.

chandigarh Updated: May 25, 2014 13:07 IST
HT Correspondent

Harassed at the hands of insurance companies due to rejection of claims of dead animals, dairy farmers are now approaching the district consumer disputes redressal forum to get relief.


Coming to aid of one such dairy farmer, the consumer forum presided over by Rajan Dewan directed United India Insurance Company Limited to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 to Kharar resident Narinder Singh on May 19.

The company has also been directed to pay the insured sum of the cow of Rs 65,000 to the complainant with 9% interest with Rs 7,000 as cost of litigation.

Singh, a villager from Kharar, claimed that he had purchased six cows through State Bank of India, Morinda, and got the same insured with United India Insurance Company Limited. All cows were inserted with microchips in the neck by a veterinary doctor.

According to the complainant, on August 15, 2013, one cow died all of a sudden without getting sick. He claimed that the post mortem report said that it had died due to heart failure.

Despite completing all formalities, the opposite party informed orally that the claim was not payable as the cow died within 15 days, said the complainant.

Aggrieved, he sent a legal notice (C-3) to the opposite party calling upon it to settle the claim, but to no avail.

The United India Insurance Company said Singh was informed that his claim was not payable as the cow had died within 15 days from the commencement of the policy.

The company said the claim was rightly rejected. The consumer forum presided over by Rajan Dewan held, “Veterinary officer opined that the animal died due to sudden cardiac arrest.

There is no mention in this report of any previous disease or illness suffered by the animal.

Therefore, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the postmortem report. Thus, rejecting the claim as the animal had died with 15 days is totally misplaced and the insurance company is proved to be deficient in rendering proper service.”

The forum also observed, “It is very strange that the insurance company, one of the leading insurance companies in the field, is dealing with the claims of consumers orally even though the claims are submitted to it in writing.

This practice adopted by the opposite party is highly deprecated and it must also be penalised for the same.”