Date of Filing : 02/07/2019

Date of Judgement : 09/10/2023

Sri Sudip Niyogi, Hon’ble President

                                                             Brief Facts

Claiming the instant complaint to have been filed on behalf of herself and her minor daughter- Suparna Maity, the complainant stated that her husband Pintu Maity had obtained/purchased one LIC policy being No. 416506171 on 20/12/2005 having the maturity date on 20/12/2025 with a sum assured of Rs.70,000/-.  Suparna Maity - the minor daughter of the complainant was made the nominee of the Policy.  Said Pintu Maity,  unfortunately, died on 8/2/2019.  The OP assured the complainant in respect of the payment in connection with the said policy and she also on being advised sent one claim application along with documents to the OP through speed post on 27/3/2019.  As the respondent did not take any initiative, complainant sent a letter through her Advocate to which also no action was taken by the OP.  Finally, she filed this complaint praying for a direction upon the respondent for making the payment of the assured sum along with interest, compensation etc.

Respondent contested the complaint by filing a written version along with evidence claiming that they already made payment of the assured sum in connection with the policy of the deceased to the person nominated by the deceased by issuing a cheque.  So, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Both parties adduced evidence and exchanged questionnaires and replies and also filed Brief Notes of Argument.

Point for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief(s) in this case?

                                                           Findings

On going through the materials on record including the documents produced by both the parties, it is found that the policy No. 416506171 obtained by the deceased Pintu Maity from the respondent on 20/12/2005 the assured value of which was Rs.70,000/-.  Also it is admitted that the said policy holder died on 8/2/2019.

According to respondent, initially the complainant, Smt. Ruma Maity who was the wife of the said policy holder was made the nominee in the said policy, but subsequently on 25/1/2006, the said policy holder Pintu Maity changed the name of the nominee through an application and he made Suparna Maity- his minor daughter, the nominee in place of his wife Ruma Maity.  Further contention of the respondent is that, as the said newly appointed nominee was minor, he (policy holder) made his father namely Manoranjan Maity as appointee of the minor.  The respondent produced the copy for change of nominee, which bears the thumb impression of said Pintu Maity as claimed by them.

On behalf of the complainant, a two-fold argument was made in support of their contention – Firstly, as per law, for change of nominee in the policy, the policy holder has to submit his application in form No. 3750.  But no such form was produced. Respondent produced Form No. 3265, which is required for appointment of the appointee of the minor.  Secondly, if the assured or the appointee is illiterate, his/her thumb impression has to be taken before a Magistrate or Development Officer, but in the present case, no such requirement was complied with.

Respondent claimed further in the replies to the questionnaires of the complainant that the required form No. 3265 is for minor nominee and appointee and form No. 3750 is used for changing nominee in cases where the nominee is major and appointee is not required.  They also claimed that form No. 3265 which was produced by the respondent would reveal that attestation of the thumb impression of the policy holder by the Development Officer.

We find that the form No. 3265 which was duly filled, it revealed that the policy holder nominated his daughter Suparna Maity, aged 3 months as his nominee in connection with his policy and Manoranjan Maity - the father of the policy holder was made as appointee who is to receive the money in the event of his death during the minority of the nominee.  There were two witnesses named in the said document and both the signatures of the policy holder and his father were also obtained. 

Apart from this, complainant is found to have admitted in his petition of complaint that their daughter Suparna Maity was made the nominee in respect of the policy of her husband.  Not only that, she also produced a copy of her letter dt. 27/3/2019 addressed to the Branch Manager of the respondent regarding death claim of the said policy.  She clearly stated therein that, as her daughter was a minor, her father-in-law (i.e. complainant’s father-in-law) was made guardian (appointee) in connection with the said policy.  So, it is found that complainant herself actually admitted the contention of the respondent in respect of the change of nominee and also appointment of the appointee by her husband.

We further find that respondent claimed that he made the required payment of Rs.70,000/- to Manoranjan Maity, the appointee of the minor nominee in connection/with the policy of the deceased by way of cheque No. 001267 dt. 23/4/2019 and this fact was not denied by the complainant.

Therefore, on considering the materials on record, we did not find any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this case.  Therefore, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is

                                    ORDERED

That the instant complaint case stands dismissed on contest.  No order as to cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

President