Sri Aswini Kumar Patra,President,

1. This Complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops No. 1 & 2 for releasing the death benefit under an  insurance policy to the OP 3/ i.e the nominee of insured Sisira Kanta Saha without following  the procedure as prescribed under law  & ignoring the grievance of the widow of the deceased insured Sisira Kanta Saha /here the  complainant.
2.  The complainant seeks for the following relief:-

1.  Pass on order, directing the O.P No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,01,025/- to the complainant along with the interest @12% per annum form the date of the death of the complainants husband and to recover the said amount form the O.P NO.3 by adopting due legal procedure.
2. Pass an order, directing the O.P No.3 to pay Ra.1,01,025/- to the complainant along with the interest & 12% per annum form the date of the death of the complainant husband.
3. Direct the O.P parties to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of compensation , mental harassment, advocate fee and cost of litigation.
4. Direct the O.P parties to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards the exemplary cost.
5. Pass any other relief /reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit & proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

2.  The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant as emerged from the case record is that, the complainant is the legally married wife /widow of deceased Sisira Kanta Saha . Sisira Kanta Saha died on 28.04.2021 due to Covid -19. During his life time & when he was unmarried, Sisira Kanta Saha had insured his life with LIC of India vide policy No.573250991 dt.28.03.2011  .One Tusarakanta Saha/OP 3 ,the brother of the deceased husband of the complainant , was featured as  the nominee there in the said insurance policy to receive the death benefit under the said policy in case of premature death of the insured Sisira Kanta Saha and that , taking undue advantage of being the nominee of the policy holder , the O.P No.3 was intending to   withdrawn the death benefit by misrepresenting the factum of legal hires of the policy holder for which the complainant had sent a pleader notice through her advocate to the O.P No.2 on dt.22.06.2021 wherein she being widow /the class -1 legal hires of the policy holder claimed to release her the death benefit under the said insurance policy as  her  entitlement. The OP 2 even after receiving of the said notice disbursed the death benefit to the OP 3 on 27.07.2021 without paying any heed & ignoring the grievance of the complainant caused financial loss & mental agony to the complainant .The complainant is basically aggrieved by the mis- conduct of the OP 1 & 2 for not entertaining her grievance and secondly for disbursing the death benefit to the OP 3 even when the facts of legal hire of the deceased policy holder were duly brought to the knowledge of OP no. .2 .Hence, this complainant is filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op 1 & 2 and prayed for  an order as stated above.
3. To substantiate her claim the complainant has filed the photo copy of the pleader notice sent by the complainant along with copy of postal receipt of notice dt. 22.06.2021 through her advocate .The complaint averments are also supported by an affidavit of the complainant.
4. This consumer complaint is contested by the Ops filing their respective written version and denying the petition allegation on all its material particulars.
5. The OP No.1 & 2   submitted that, they have no knowledge about the marriage of the deceased life assured and asked  the complainant to prove the fact that, the complainant is the legally married wife/widow of the deceased life assured. It is further submitted that, the Ops could know the death of life assured only on the receiving of claim intimation submitted by the registered nominee/OP3. It is further submitted that, as per Sec.39 of Insurance Act, as the registered nominee/OP 3 submitted the death claim intimation and Claim Form duly filled in , the claim has been paid to him as the insurer is duly bound to pay the claim to the nominee in accordance to Sec.39 of the Insurance Act until & unless the insurer is restraint from doing so by a competent court of law. The OP 1 & 2 have further  challenged the maintainability of this complaint stating therein in their written version that, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain claim between the registered nominee & the complainant as the claim is a  rival  claim. To substantiate their contention the Op 1&2  have relied on the copy of policy bond bearing No.573250991 and claim form submitted by the OP 3. With this submission, the OP 1 & 2 urged to dismiss this complaint with cost.
6. .The OP 3 filed his written version challenging the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission to decide the dispute between the OP 3 & the complainant, so also, denied the cause of action of this case as mentioned in the complaint petition. It is submitted that, OP 3 being the nominee of his insured brother in the said policy did his duty as per the provision of the Insurance Act. It is contended that ,the  nominee is entitled to receive the claim amount over any other legal heir. He has no knowledge regarding serving of pleader notice to the OP 2 and that, this complaint is filed falsely and that ,the complainant has claimed her right in a wrong way in a wrong forum as such the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted that, OP 2 has never neglected in his service by releasing the death benefit of the deceased to his brother (OP 3) who was the valid nominee as per the provision of insurance law, accordingly this complaint has got no merit liable to be dismissed with cost.
7.  Heard. Peruse the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the submission of rival parties.
8. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents relied on by both the parties placed in the record, the points for consideration before this Commission are:-Whether the complainant is a consumer of the Ops ? Whether the complaimnant is the widow of deceased insured Sisira Kanta Saha ? Whether the complainant is entitled for insurance benefits there under the alleged insurance policy vide policy No.573250991 of   LIC of India Ltd, on account of premature death of her insured husband Sisira Kanta Saha ? Whether the Ops/LIC of India has deficient in service by releasing the insurance benefit to the nominee of the deceased insured under the said insurance policy? Whether this complainant is maintainable before this Commission under C.P.Act 2019?   Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief(s) as claimed in this complainant?
9. The facts that, deceased Sisira Kanta Saha was insured with the LIC of India vide Policy No.573250991 dt.28.03.2011 and he died on 28.04.2021 while the insurance policy was in force and that, the OP 3 /Tusara Kataa Saha was the nominee there in the said policy to receive the insurance benefit under the said policy in case of pre matured death of insured and that, insurance benefit is released to the nominee on dt.27.07.2021 are  not disputed.
10. Admittedly a policy of insurance effected by any married man on his own life and expressed on the face of it to be for the benefit of his wife or of his wife & children or any of them shall ensure and be deemed to be a trust for the benefit of his wife.
11. The Op No.2 & 3 has disputed the marriage of the insured deceased Sisira Kanta Saha and have asked the complainant to prove the same. It is also denied by the OP No.1 & 2 that, any pleader notice dt.22.06.2021 as stated in the   complaint petition has ever been received by the OP 2.
12. As per Sec.38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit & documentary evidence placed on record  as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
13. Neither complainant nor the Ops have come forward to lead their evidence as prescribed under Sec.38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 to proved their respective pleadings.
14. No cogent evidence is placed on record to hold that ,the complainant is the legally married wife /widow of deceased insured Sisira Kanta Saha as such we are unable to conclude that, the complainant  is the beneficiary under the said insurance policy and have any locus  stand to present this complaint before this Commission under C.P.Act 2019 .
15. The complainant has failed to proved that, the  pleader notice  dt.22.06.2021 as stated their in her complaint petition was properly served /received by the OP 2 prior to  disbursing of insurance benefit to the nominee/OP 3  and that , the Ops No.1 & 2 have deliberately ignored the said representation/notice  of the  complaint .
16.  Law is well settled that, the nominee is entitled to receive the claim amount over any other legal heir and the insurer is duly bound to pay the claim to the nominee in accordance to Sec.39 of the Insurance Act until & unless the insurer is restraint from doing so by a competent court of law. There is no such materials available on record to hold that, the complainant has ever obtained any order from competent court restraining the OP 1 & 2 to release the insurance benefit to the valid nominee/Op 3 as such we found nothing deficient service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP 1 & 2 by releasing the insurance benefit to the OP 3/nominee of the deceased insured under the said insurance policy.
17. Law is well settled that, mere pleading itself shall not construed evidence. Complainant is to prove the allegation made in her   complaint petition. The complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to substantiate her pleadings. There is   no cogent evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the complaint allegation of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of O.P s .
18. Based on above discussion and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that, this complaint sans merits as such the complainant is not entitled to any relief(s) as claimed rather, this complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.Ps. Hence, it is order.

ORDER

                  This complaint is dismissed on contest against the OPs .No order as to   cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.

                President

              I   agree.

                                Member                                                                                     

Pronounced  in open Commission today on this   27^th September 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission. Pending application if any is also stands disposed off.

Copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of cost .The judgment be uploaded forth with on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.  Ordered  accordingly.