Telangana farmer finally gets Rs 80,000 insurance payout 10 years after buffalo’s death

Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties including the insurance company cannot be ignored, said the Telangana Consumer Commission. (Image generated using AI)

Deficiency in service can’t be ignored

• The post-mortem was conducted, and the findings reveal that the animal died due to severe hepatitis.
• The Telangana State Livestock Development Agency is a state-subsidised scheme, and the insurance claim process mandates the immediate intimation to the concerned VAS (veterinary assistant surgeon).
• The ear tag must remain intact, and this will be inspected by the VAS, who will also conduct the post-mortem and fill out the claim form cum death certificate along with photographs.
• The complainant has provided the evidence of the booking receipt and is requesting the proof of return of the undelivered package.
• Since this is not satisfactorily established by the opposite parties, numbers 1 to 3 (DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited ), the inference is that the complainant sent the relevant documents to the opposite party number 4 (Oriental Insurance), which were not received by them, and therefore they could not process the claim.
• This deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties cannot be ignored, and the delay in processing the claim must be duly compensated by the opposite parties, numbers 1 to 3.

How dispute began

The case arose from the death of a buffalo owned by one J Rajani Kumar, an agriculturist from Ramavaram village in Warangal district.

The animal, insured under the Telangana State Livestock Development Agency (TSLDA) scheme, died on February 16, 2016, due to ill health. A post-mortem later attributed the death to severe hepatitis.

To claim the insurance amount, Kumar collected the required documents, including the post-mortem report, photographs and the buffalo’s ear tag.

He booked a courier parcel through DTDC on February 16, 2016, for delivery to the rural insurance cell of Excellent Insurance Broking Services Limited in Hyderabad, which handled claims under the scheme.

According to the farmer, the parcel never reached its destination and was never returned to him. As a result, the insurance claim could not be processed. After sending a legal notice in August 2016 and receiving no relief, he approached the consumer commission.

Courier company’s defence

DTDC and its representatives admitted that the parcel had been booked but argued that delivery could not be completed because the consignee’s office was not found at the address mentioned in Madhapur, Hyderabad.

They claimed the office had shifted location and blamed the complainant for allegedly providing an incorrect address.

The courier company also maintained that the parcel had eventually been returned to the complainant.

However, it failed to produce any acknowledgement or documentary proof showing that the package had actually been handed back to him.

The commission noted that the tracking records did not support the courier company’s version and that no convincing evidence was placed on record to establish the return of the parcel.

Insurer says no claim was received

Oriental Insurance argued that it had never received any claim form or claim intimation from the farmer and therefore could not be faulted for failing to process the claim.

The insurer contended that submission of claim documents was mandatory and, since those documents never reached it, no liability could be fastened upon the company.

The insurer further argued that there was no deficiency in service on its part because the claim had never formally come before it.

Commission finds farmer followed procedure

After reviewing the evidence, the state commission found that the complainant had successfully established that he booked the parcel containing the required claim documents and had complied with the claim procedure prescribed under the livestock insurance scheme.

The bench observed that the courier company admitted receiving the parcel but failed to prove either delivery to the insurer or return to the sender. As a result, the commission concluded that the documents were lost while in transit.

The commission also examined the claim form-cum-death certificate, post-mortem report and other records certified by the veterinary assistant surgeon. These documents showed that the buffalo had died due to severe hepatitis and that all required formalities under the TSLDA insurance scheme had been completed.

Holding that Kumar had clearly established his entitlement under the scheme, the commission said he could not be deprived of compensation merely because the documents failed to reach the insurer through no fault of his own.

Earlier order modified

The District Consumer Commission, Warangal, had in September 2021 directed the courier entities to pay the insured amount of Rs 60,000 with interest and granted them liberty to recover the amount from the insurer.

The state commission, however, modified that order. It held that while the courier company was responsible for the deficiency in service and should bear costs, the insurance claim itself had to be honoured by Oriental Insurance because the farmer had proved his eligibility under the policy.

Final directions

The commission has ordered the Oriental Insurance Company to pay him Rs 60,000 with 6 per cent annual interest from September 1, 2021, upholding a Rs 10,000 penalty against the courier company responsible for the lost paperwork.

The ruling brings to an end a decade-long struggle for a farmer whose claim was derailed not by a dispute over coverage but by the disappearance of documents that were crucial to processing it.

The commission’s decision underscores that beneficiaries of public welfare insurance schemes should not be made to suffer because of procedural lapses beyond their control.