Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The pith and substance of the case is that the Complainant No.1 & 2 are the wife and father respectively of deceased husband Biplab Indra Neaogi. The deceased husband purchased one LICI policy being No. 453157334 dated 20.12.2004 sum assured Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, he paid quarterly premium of Rs.1246/- regularly (Annexure-A being the copy of policy deed). The said Biplab Indra Neaogi died on 22.04.2015 due to un-natural causes and accordingly Post Mortem No.385/2015 dated 22.04.2015 was done at Jalpaiguri Sadar Hospital. Sampa Indra Neaogi Basak, wife of the deceased i.e. Complainant No.1, Barnan Indra Neaogi, son of the deceased i.e. Complainant No.2, Kalyani Indra Neaogi mother of the deceased i.e. proforma OP. So, accordingly, Complainants prayed before Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Cooch Behar Branch claiming death claim of LICI policy on 14.07.2015. According to the Complainants stated that on 05.08.2015 the Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Cooch Behar Branch legally did not consider the said petition. Finding no other alternative Complainants are bound to send Lawyer’s notice through Ld. Advocate Santosh Kr. Sah on 16.05.23 regarding illegal activities of the OP and on 23.05.23 OP replied the same to the Complainants (Annexure-B being the copy of petition dated 14.07.2015, Annexure-C being reply dated 08.08.2015, Annexure- D & E are the notice of the Advocate sent by the Complainants and reply respectively). The above activities of the O.Ps tantamount to deficiency in service.
Due to non-payment of death claim, the Complainants suffered mental pain and agony as well as financially loss. The cause of action of the present case arose on 20.12.2004 when the LICI policy was purchased and on 22.04.15 date of death of policy holder and on 14.07.15 when the Complainants prayed for death claim and on 16.05.23 when the Complainants sent Advocate notice and lastly on 23.05.23 when the OP replied notice and still continuing. The Complainants therefore prayed for the relief in terms of the prayer of the written complaint. The Complainants also prayed to pay the death benefit of the LICI policy mentioned above alongwith up to date interest and Rs. 1 Lakh as deficiency in service as well as mental pain and agony and Rs. 50,000/- for non-payment of death benefit and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of proceeding.
The O.P. No.1 contested the case by filing written version wherein he denied each and every allegation of the Complainants. The positive defence case of the O.P. No.1 in short is that this Commission is not proper forum for this case to be adjudicated.
As per written version O.P. No.1 stated that deceased Biplab Indra Neaogi during the life time received survival benefit on 21.08.04 and where the Kalyani Indra Neaogi, mother of the deceased is the nominee of the said policy. O.P. No.1 also stated that according to section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 the death claim is always payable to the recorded nominee who can execute connected forms/ after discharged vouchers towards the settlement of the death claim upon death of concerned policy holder.
So, there was no negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps and O.P. No.1 is praying for release from the instant case.
The O.P. No.2 also contested the case by filing written version wherein she denied each and every allegation of the Complainants. The positive defence case of the O.P. No.2 in short is that O.P. No.2 is the nominee and here she is contesting in the present case as Proforma O.P. No.2 and it is none else but she is entitled to get all the death benefits of said Biplab Indra Neaogi, since deceased. So, the O.P. No.2 therefore claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The specific claim of the Complainants and denial of the same by the OP with specified reasons led this Commission to ascertain the following points for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for Determination
- Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act, 2019?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point Nos.1, 2 & 3.
All the points are taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion. It is admitted position that Complainant No.1 & 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased husband Biplab Indra Neaogi. The Complainants prayed for death claim of the policy which was registered in the name of deceased husband Biplab Indra Neaogi having No.453157334 dated 20.12.04 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is also the admitted fact that the husband of the Complainant died unfortunately on 22.04.15. The Complainants as a legal heirs filed the present case against the Branch Manager of LIC of India of O.P. No.1 and Smt. Kalyani Indra Neaogi as Proforma O.P. No.2. Thus, having considered all aspects, this Commission is of the view that this Commission has no jurisdiction to disburse the amount among all the Complainants according to their shares. According to section 39 of Insurance Act, 1938 the death claim is always payable to the recorded nominee. In the present case Smt. Kalyani Indra Neaogi is a nominee.
Nominee is the only legally authorized person to withdraw the amount stands in the name of deceased. Consumer Commission cannot pass any order to disburse the amount to the legal heirs of the deceased when nominee is there.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.2 argued and filed a decision passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarabati Devi and another Vs Smt. Usha Devi, reported in AIR section 346 of 1984 wherein Hon’ble Supreme court has clearly stated that according to section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 the nominee is only legally authorized person to receive the amount under the Life Insurance policy on the death of the insured. The legal heirs can claim in accordance with the law of succession governing them. The Proforma O.P. No.2 cited another case law in Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1972 wherein Allahabad High Court has clearly stated that the nominee under section 39 of the said Act is nothing more than an agent to receive the money due under a life insurance policy in the circumstances similar to those in the present case. The said section also provides that a holder of a policy of life insurance on his own life may when effecting the policy or at any time before the policy mature for payment nominate the person or persons to whom the money secured by the policy shall be paid in the event of his death. In this case Hon’ble High Court has also envisaged that a mere nomination made under section 39 of the Act does not have that effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing. This Commission is very much agree with these two Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court.
On behalf of the Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant argued and filed a copy of judgment of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Brahmpur in its CC case No. 30/2013 and in another Judgment cited by Complainant passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission decided on October17, 2011, wherein the Apex Court of India has envisaged in case of Smt. Sarabati Devi & another Vs Smt. Usha Devi. Above two decisions are superseded by Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court of Allahabad. So, these two Judgments filed by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainants are not appropriate in this present case. Ld. Advocate on behalf of O.P. No.1 has not advanced his oral argument and he submitted his written version and evidence on affidavit.
Thus after assessing the entire evidence of the Complainants, the claim of the Complainants for realization of the sum as stated in the Complaint could not be established up to the hilt.
In the light of discussion made herein above and having assessed the evidence on record the Commission comes to the findings that the Complainants failed to establish the claim up to the hilt. In the result the complaint case fails.
Point Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are thus decided in negative and goes against the Complainants.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/39/2023 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
The Complainants are advised to file a civil case in appropriate Forum.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
