BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.81/2008

Between

Complainant : P.K.Sivaprasad,

Puthenpurackal House,

Idukki Colony P.O,

Cheruthony - 685 602,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: Jose Thomas & C.M.Binoy)

And

Opposite Party : The Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Mundakkayam Branch,

Mundakkayam P.O.

(By Advs:C.M.Tomy & K.M.Sanu)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complaint is filed against the deficiency in service of opposite party for disbursing the insurance amount of the deceased wife of the complainant. The complainant's wife was an insurance policy holder of LIC as Policy No.390847768. The complainant is the nominee of the policy. The policy holder Smt.Ushakumari was expired on 31.07.2007. The opposite party requested the complainant to produce the original death certificate. The complainant submitted that the original death certificate is produced before the Court and so the notarized copy of the death certificate is produced to the opposite party.

2. I.A 63/08 is the claim petition filed by the three children of the deceased Ushakumari, named 1. P.S.Lakshmi D/o Sivaprasad, Puthenpurackal House,Vazhoor P.O, Ist Mile, Anikkadu Village, Kottayam Taluk, 2. P.S.Vishnu S/o Sivaprasad, - do - and 3. P.S.Rajalakshmi D/o Sivaprasad(Minor), - do - through advocate Mr.E.M.Suresh, Ettumanoor, Kottaym with P.K.Sivaprasad, Puthenpurackal House, Idukki Colony P.O, Cheruthony - 685 602 and the Branch Manager, LIC, Mundakkayam Branch as Ist and 2nd opposite parties respectively, claiming that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Ushakumari. Before the death of the policy holder itself the first respondent was not looking after the policy holder and children. He was behaving very cruelly to the petitioners and the policy holder. At that time the complainant was living an adulterous life with other lady near his automobile workshop at Cheruthoni. The policy holder had complained this matter before the JFCM Court, Kanjirappally and a case was pending there. Another case filed before the Family Court, Ettumanoor as O.P.90/08 by the policy holder before her death against the complainant for maintenance and return of gold ornaments. That is also pending before the Court. Original policy and death certificate are with the claim petitioners and are filed before the Hon'ble Sub Court, Pala for getting succession certificate in favour of the petitioners. The complainant was living separately with the policy holder before her death. She never intended that the complainant be allowed to receive the claim as per the policy at the time of death. The claim petitioners are having the right to get 3/4 of the insurance claim because they are Hindu Ezhava community and as per the Hindu Succession Act.

3. The opposite party in the complaint appeared by learned counsel and submitted that they are ready to disburse the policy amount. The complainant is the husband of late Smt.Ushakumari and also he is the nominee in the LIC Policy. The claim of the complainant was delayed by the opposite party because the complainant did not file the original death certificate.

4. The learned counsel appeared for the opposite party submitted that they are ready to disburse the entire policy amount. But the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased, two daughters and one son submitted that they are entitled to get the 3/4 share of the policy amount. The original death certificate is with them and it is produced before the Sub Court, Pala for getting succession certificate. Before going to the evidence, it is very clear that there is no deficiency in the part of opposite party. Because they are ready to disburse the amount. Here we are considering only about the deficiency in service of the opposite party because the petition is filed for that purpose only. So we are not going to the merit of the claim petition. If the legal heirs are entitled to get the

claim they can also approach the opposite party for getting their claim after getting authorised certificates to prove the same. The opposite party is having the right to consider the same as per law, or as per the order from any other authorities.

5. So we think it is fit to dismiss the I.A No.63/2008 filed by the three children of the deceased Ushakumari claiming that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Ushakumari and also this Original Petition because no deficiency is seen from the part of opposite party. The claim petition and the matter of legal heirship should be decided by a Civil Court. It is only a civil dispute.

Hence the petition dismissed. But the opposite party is directed to consider Succession Certificate showing the legal heirs of the deceased policy holder, when disbursing the insurance amount.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of February, 2009

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX : Nil