Orissa

Rayagada

CC/121/2021

Smt. Srirama Kessama - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.___121______/2021                                    Date.   6.8.   ..2022.

 

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President.

Sri   Satis  Kumar  Panigrahi ,.                                         Member

Smt.  Srirama  Kessama, W/O : Late  P.Srinivas Rao,  Rayagada

            Cell   No. 82606- 24990.                                      … Complainant.

                        Versus.

            The Branch Manager, LIC of  India,  Rayagada Branch, Rayagada.

                                                                                    … Opposite parties.

JUDGEMENT

 

The brief facts of the case  summarized  here under. That  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non receipt  death claim of  the deceased  husband  towards policy No. 573895090 for which  the complainant  pray for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

That the complainant  is the wife of the late   P.Srinivas Rao,  who was a Electrical   Engineer.  On  Dt. 20.12.2020  the said   Rao died  on an accident. The  complainant  further  submits that  during  his life time, Sri P.Srinivas Rao, had opened  insurance policy  bearing policy  No. 573895090   on Dt. 18.12.2013  for sum assured    an amount  of  Rs.1,70,000/-.  The complainant states that on  the death of  Sri  P.Srinivas Rao  she requested to the O.P.  for payment of  insurance of her  husbands amount to her.   But the O.P. did not  oblige  to pay  the amount and kept it  pending for payment  of the amount to  Smt. P.Savitri (Nominee) in the present case. The complainant claims that she and her only daughter aged 5 year    are  the  only legal heirs of the late P.Srinivas Rao and as such the denial of payment of  her   late husbands  insured amount to her  by  the O.P.  is unjust.  Hence  her prayer   for   tenability  of the insured amount.

On being noticed the O.Ps.neither entering in to appear before the commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  07 adjournments had been given to them. Complainant consequently filed her memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 1 (one) years   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing    from  the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the  C.P. Act. Hence the O.P  wasset exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over  as to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. 

Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

FINDINGS..

The OPs despite receiving notice from this  commission  are failed to render service to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

No doubt the  O.P. is under obligation to pay the sum assured  to the nominee only if the claim  is admissible. If the complainant  claims to be  the legal  heir  of the  Deceased  policy  holder,  she can claim the insured amount in accordance  with the law of succession governing them.  In such circumstances the Hon’ble  Orissa  High Court while dealing with the case  of Bhanumati   Behera  Vrs.  L.I.C. of India (Source:- details of the case  published  in the  “Indian Express” dated. Ist. Novemnber, 1997 under the  Caption  “CLAIMENT  NEED NOT BE A NOMINEE”  referred to a decision of the  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  where in the  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  has held  that the policy holder  continue to hold interest in the policy during his life time  and the nominee does not  acquire  any  interest in the policy during the life  time of the policy holder. The Hon’ble Supreme Court  has further  observed  that  on the death of the policy holder  the amount  payable under the policy becomes part of his estate which is governed by the  law of  succession applicable to him, and Section – 39 of the Insurance  Act, 1938 can not  operate as a third kind  of succession.  So the Hon’ble  Supreme Court   ruled that  the amount payable  to the nominee does not mean that the amount shall belongs to the nominee  alone.   In the  light of the decision  of the Hon’ble Supreme Court    we hold that  the complainant in the present case is the legal heir to the  property  of the  deceased policy holder  by virtue of her legal   marriage with him , and therefore , her claim over  the assured  amount of the policy holder  can not be brushed over  according to the  law of succession.  in the same  manner the claim of the  nominee also  can not be   ignored  as the nominee   of the deceased  policy holder.   In the fitness of circumstances, therefore, the assured amount  shall be  shared 60% to the complainant  as the legally wedded wife  of the  deceased policy holder and  40% to the mother  of the policy holder as nominee, respectively  for the best interest of justice.                                       ORDER.

In  resultant  the complaint petition  is allowed  an exparte  against the O.Ps.

The O.P. is directed to pay the  assured  amount  towards  policy  No. 573895090  to the  complainant  and  nominee at a ratio  of  60% to the complainant   and  40% to the nominee  to meet the ends of justice  within   30 days from the date  of  receipt  of this order.  Parties  are left to bear their own cost.

Dictated and corrected by me. Pronounced on this 6^th day of August                  2022.

Member.                              President.