Insurance claim for dead horse rejected over ‘missing ear tag’, woman wins Rs 70,000 relief

The order held that the insurer’s negligent and arbitrary conduct amounts to deficiency in service. As a result, the complainant not only suffered mental agony but was also compelled to institute the present consumer complaint against the opposite parties to seek redressal.

The complainant’s late husband had insured his horse for Rs 40,000 under the National Livestock Mission (Risk Management/Insurance) Scheme on July 27, 2020. The horse died on December 8, 2020, after which the death was promptly reported to the veterinary officer and the insurer. A surveyor inspected the animal, and all required claim documents were submitted to the insurance company on December 14, 2020.

However, the insurer rejected the claim on the grounds of “No Tag, No Claim”, alleging that the animal’s ear tag had not been deposited with the company. The complainant, however, contended that the horse’s identity had already been verified by the veterinary officer through the tag number and post-mortem examination, making the rejection arbitrary.

After receiving no relief despite serving a legal notice, the complainant approached the district consumer commission alleging deficiency in service and sought the insured amount, compensation for mental agony, and litigation costs.

Insurer’s conduct illogical: Forum

• The commission stated that the insurance company did not file any affidavit in support of its written statement. It only submitted a list of documents.
• The conduct of the insurance company cannot be regarded as reasonable, logical, or legally sustainable.
• The insurer’s decision to repudiate the complainant’s claim based on the “No Tag, No Claim” condition is arbitrary and liable to be set aside as illegal and invalid.

Relief ordered

The commission directed the insurance company to pay the complainant Rs 40,000 towards the insured value of the horse within 45 days. It also awarded Rs 20,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs. Failing timely compliance, the insurer must pay 8 per cent annual interest on Rs 40,000 from October 18, 2022, until realisation.

Significance

This ruling reinforces that insurers cannot reject genuine claims on technical grounds when the insured asset’s identity is otherwise established. It strengthens consumer protection by prioritising substantive justice over procedural lapses, holds insurers accountable for arbitrary claim repudiation, and affirms that such conduct amounts to a deficiency in service warranting compensation.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Uttarakhand helpline: 1800-180-4188) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.