District Consumer Commission, Bokaro.

Case No. 05/2018

  Date of Filing-17-01-2018

 Date of Order-24-06-2022

Sunil Kumar Verma S/o- Late jay P. Verma

R/o- H.No. 7 Block No. 34, New B.C.C.L Coloney,

Dugda Coal Washri, District- Bokaro

Vr.

1. Rajiv Kumar Mishra……(Deleted vide oreder dt. 22-01-2017)
2. Branch Manager, Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2^nd Floor Insurance Building, M/5, Chandrakali Bhawan, Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City. (Added Vide order dt. 07-04-2018)
3. Anil Verma S/o Late Pradesh verma

R/o Rajeshthani Apartment, Plaza Chouck, Ranchi (Added V.O.S. dt. 09-08-2018)

Present:-

          Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

           Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

Order

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.P. No. 2 for payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of death claim related to insurance policy No. 261579387 with direction to pay it through cheque in the name of the complainant.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that  his father was Jai Prakash Verma who purchased two insurance policies from Max Life Insurance Co. on 09.01.2015 for some assured Rs. 35,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- respectively but since the policy having maturity value of Rs. 35,00,000/- is out of the jurisdiction of this Forum hence this case has been filed only in connection with policy No. 261579387 for Rs. 7,00,000/-. Further case is that complainant is nominee of both the policies and his father died on 21.12.2016 on which complainant applied for payment of death claim related to that very policy but it was not paid hence legal notice was issued having no impact therefore, this case has been filed.
3.  O.P. No. 2 appeared and they he has filed W.S. mentioning therein that for want of succession certificate claim was closed because there is dispute in the title of the claim. Except it there is no other major objection of this O.P. It is admitted fact of this O.P. that complainant is nominee of that very policy and insured died on 21.12.2016. Further reply is that O.P. with bonafied intention has verified the claim and found that elder brother of the complainant namely Anil Verma is also claiming the benefits under the policy further a legal notice was received to this O.P.  hence claim was kept pending as it was disputed.
4. During pendency of  this case full brother of the complainant namely Anil Verma appeared and on his prayer he has been impleaded as O.P. No.3 in this case and he has also filed W.S. mentioning therein that he is also equally entitled to get benefit of the policy along with the complainant but to grab the property the complainant has filed this case.
5. Only point for consideration by this Commission is whether there is deficiency in service by the insurance co.?  And whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed ?
6. On perusal of pleadings of the parties it appears that  purchase of insurance policy by the father of complainant and O.P. No.3 is not in dispute. The another fact related to death of the father of the complainant and O.P. No.3 on 21.12.2016 is also not in dispute. The fact that the complainant is nominee of the insurance policy is also admitted fact.
7. At para 4 of the W.S. of the O.P. No.3 it has been mentioned that “It is settled principle of law that nomination only indicates the hand which is to receive the benefits but benefits have to be distributed according to law of succession, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on nominee. Further it is mentioned that in this regard reference may be taken of (2009) 10 SCC 680 Shipra Sengupta Vrs. Mridul Sengupta & others.
8. On this aspect law is well settled and we would like to mention here that in the case of : Madhu Bala Srivastava Vs. Saroj Srivastava reported in MANU/UP/2355/2015 Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) have been pleased to observe at para 17 of that very report that:-

      “17. Another case law cited on behalf of appellant is a judgement of this High Court passed by a Single Judge in First Appeal From Order No. 172 of 1978; Smt. Jagat Nandini and Anr. v. Inder Pal. Para 4 of this judgement is as under: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, there is no room to doubt any longer that the capacity of the nominee under the life insurance policy is purely that of an agent. He collects the amounts from the insurer and pays it to the persons entitled to receive the same and, as such, gets no interest to the estate of the deceased. He is not even a beneficiary in respect of the estate left by the deceased. This has been made amply clear by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarbati  Devi v. Smt. Usha  Devi  MANU/SC/0231/1983 : (1984) 55 Comp Case 214 (SC), which has affirmed the Full Bench decision of this court in Raja Ram V. Mata Prasad  MANU/UP/0043/1972 : (1973) 43 Comp Case 53 (All) (FB).”

9. In light of above admitted facts as well as the law settled on this point it is very much clear that purpose of mentioning the nominee is authorization to facilitate  him to withdraw the money and to distribute it amongst all entitled persons. The jurisdiction of the insurance co. was to secure the withdrawal and its distribution amongst all lawful claimants by obtaining under taking/security bond or indemnity bond etc. to avoid future complications. Here in this case insurance co. has not obeyed the conditions of the insurance policy regarding payment to the nominee, hence there is deficiency in service by the Insurance co. and complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed. We are cautious on the aspect that this Commission having no jurisdiction to decide right and title of the parties concerned. Hence this order will never be read as decision on the point of right of any of the party.
10.  Accordingly prayer of the complainant is being allowed in the following manner:-

O.P. No. 2 is directed to make payment of all dues of insurance policy No. 261579387 to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- with all accrued benefits to the complainant within 60 days from today on his furnishing indemnity bond of the same amount so that in case of any future complications insurance co. may not be held liable. Parties are free to approach appropriate forum/Court for decision on the point of their entitlement related to their right and interest in respect to claim of the property.