District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Surya Sen Sarani Municipal Building, 1^st Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101.

Telefax: 03522-270013

============================================================================================

                             Consumer Complain No.:14/05

            Complainant                                        Vs        Opposite Party / Parties

Order No.: 18

 Dt. 19.12.2006

Present         (1) Sri S. Bhattacharyya                     - President

                        (2) Sri S. K. Ghosh                             - Member

Counsels        (1) Chittranjan Das                              - Advocate for Complainants

                        (2) Bidyut Kr. Roy                               - Advocate for OP

            This is to consider a petition of complain U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming sum of Rs.3,58,740/- from L.I.C. Balurghat Branch against the policies mentioned in the schedule of the petition of complain.

            Facts of the case, in short, is that deceased Amal Kr. Saha purchased L.I.C. Policies Nos. 451206872, 451208146, 451205694, 451203354, 451206014, 451208531, 451266377 and 059718578 for his own life and name of his mother Shila Saha (since deceased) was entered as nominee of the said policies. Said Amal Kr. Saha died intestate on 29.12.2004. Thereafter the said Shila Saha submitted claim before the OP against the said policies. The OP refused to release the amount payable under the said policies on the ground that one Lakshmi Saha wife of deceased Amal Kr. Saha made counter claim in respect of the said policies. So, the OP is not able to release the amount in respect of the aforesaid policies unless the claim and counter claim of the said parties are decided by competent court of law.

            During pendency of this petition Shila Saha died and petitioners have been substituted as complainants vide Order No.7 dt. 29.07.2005.

            OP contested the case by filing a written version stating inter alia that it is not possible for L.I.C. to release the amount unless the claim and counter claim are decided by the competent court of law.

            In view of the contentions of the parties the question falls for determination is : -

            Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP/L.I.C. and

            whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief in this case ?

                                                                                                                                  Cont…..2

- : 2 : -

Decision with reasons:

            Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant argued that this Forum is competent to pass necessary order directing OP/L.I.C. to release the amount against the policies as Lakshmi Saha, wife of deceased Amal Kr. Saha did not appear and file any objection despite service of notice.

            Ld. Counsel appearing for the OP/L.I.C. submits that the L.I.C has no objection to release the amount in respect of the policies in question if Forum may pass order and as Lakshmi Saha wife of deceased policy holders Amal Kr. Saha did not appear and file any objection.

            We considered the contentions of both sides with a reference to the documents on record and the relevant provisions of the law.

            Facts remains that the nominee Shila Saha has been expired and the substituted complainants are claiming the amount against the L.I.C. polices as legal heirs of Shila Saha by virtue of law of inheritance. Admittedly, the substituted complainants are not nominees of the deceased policyholders. So the substituted complainants are not entitled to claim the amount in question on the ground of nomination recorded in the policies.

            Furthermore, the legal position regarding claim upon nomination has been well settled in law. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a person holding National Savings Certificates (NSC) or an Insurance Policy dies his legal heir would have the sole rights over the money of maturity rather than the nominee mentioned in the certificate. The nomination only indicated the person who was authorized to receive the money. Amount paid to the nominee becomes the estate of the deceased and devolves upon all persons who are entitled to succession under law.

            Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled legal position the substituted complainants, in the instant case, are not entitled to claim any money unless they obtain succession certificates in their favour in respect of property in question from a competent court of law.

            The refusal of payment against the policies in question by the OP/L.I.C., in the instant case, does not appear to be deficiency in service. For the reasons stated above the claim fails. Hence,

                                                            O R D E R E D

            That the consumer complain is dismissed on contest without cost.

            The case could not be disposed of within the specified period of 90 days, as there was

            no Member in this Forum till September 2006.

            Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost

                                                                                                               By Order of the Forum

             I agree,

     ……………………………………..                                     ………………………………….

                   Member                                                                              President

 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum                    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

            Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat                                           Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat