O   R   D   E  R

        This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.40,098/- with interest @ 12% p.a., and also to pay reasonable amount as compensation for causing mental agony on the following averments:

        The deceased Vijaya Rama Rao who was working as a teacher in Zilla Parishad was residing alone near the house of complainant and in due course of time he developed affection towards her and treated her as his adopted daughter and during his life time he had taken many Life Insurance Corporation policies in the names of his children and wife, while they were all living in one roof.  Out of love and affection towards the complainant he has taken a policy with the SBI Life Insurance under policy No.27017864010 with the 2^nd respondent and nominated the complainant to receive the benefits of the policy in the event of his death.  After death of the policy holder the complainant applied to 2^nd opposite party and requested to process the claim for payment of policy amount to her being the nominee and submitted all necessary documents upon which the 1^st O.P sent two letters to her calling upon her to submit adoption deed and succession certificate. Though the complainant submitted a detailed letter after taking legal opinion and though the O.Ps were made known, that the adoption was not registered and production of succession certificate does not arise in view of the fact that death claim of insurance amount does not come within the meaning of debt or    security and as such she being the nominee is entitled to claim the amount more particularly no rival claim is received by the company.   It is averred that the complainant offered indemnity bond to indemnify the Insurance Company in the event of any rival claim if received or it is called upon to pay the policy amount she would make good the loss.  The O.Ps did not settle the claim despite many demands made by the complainant.  Since there is deficiency of service on their part and as they did not respond to the request made by the complainant in settling the claim the complainant’s suffered a lot and has filed the complaint for the above said reliefs. 

       The O.Ps filed counter traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and have averred that the complaint does not come within the meaning of Consumer Dispute and Section 2(1) (e) of the C.P.Act, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          It is averred that in the KYC documents of the complainant the name of her father was mentioned as Sri Ananta Sharma and in the proposal the deceased mentioned the claimant as his daughter.   Since there is confusion with regard to the status of the complainant she was called upon to produce adoption deed/ Succession Certificate to prove her status.

          It is averred that the complainant could neither produce the original policy document nor could she submit any adoption deed and hence the O.P is constrained to seek proof of title in the name of the complainant to ensure that the policy moneys reach the right person and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part.  It is averred that the Hon’ble Appex Court clarified the rights of nominee under the life insurance policy and has held that a mere nomination U/s 39 of Insurance Act does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under Life Insurance policy on the death of the insured.

          It is averred that the O.Ps are willing to make the above payment to the right beneficiary under the policy and as the complainant has failed to prove her title to claim benefits and as no cause of action arisen for the complainant to file the complaint and as there are no bonafides in the complaint the same deserves to be dismissed. 

          In support of complainant’s case she filed her affidavit evidence and got marked Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 per contra the O.Ps filed the affidavit evidence of R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.10.  Heard the counsel for respective parties and perused the material placed on record.

          Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for ?

          It is the specific contention of the complainant that she is the nominee of deceased Vijaya Rama Rao who took Life Insurance Policy and died in an accident on 28-2-2012, and after his death she made a claim for payment of policy amount and inspite of a demand made in person and through letters      the O.Ps did not settle her claim and as there is deficiency in service on their part she was constrained to file the complaint.  In the counter filed by the O.Ps they have clearly stated that they have admitted the claim under the policy No.27017864010 and are willing to disburse the claim amount of Rs.40,098/- to the beneficiers under the policy.  They have taken a plea that as there is doubt about the status of the nominee under the policy they have called for the adoption deed / succession certificate and as the complainant failed to produce the said documents to prove her title to receive the policy amount, they did not settle her claim. 

As seen from the contents of complaint and counter filed by the respective parties it is clear that the deceased Vijaya Rama Rao had applied for SBI Life Horizon II Pension Option-1 policy vide proposal No.27355062 dated 21-11-2008 and in the proposal Form he had nominated Kum P.S.Kalpavalli       as nominee under the policy and the relationship was mentioned as daughter.  It is an admitted fact that the O.Ps have issued a policy and when it was in force the life assured died on 28-2-2012 in an accident and the O.Ps have received the death claim intimation from the complainant on 4-3-2012 but did not settle the same.

          The O.Ps having disputed the status of the complainant to be the daughter of policy holder did not settle her claim.    In para 8 of the counter, they have specifically averred that the Hon’ble Supreme court in  Sarbati Devi Vs. Usha Devi have clarified the rights of the nominee under a Life Insurance Policy by holding “ a mere nomination U/s 39 of Insurance Act 1938 does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under Life Insurance Policies on the death of the insured.  The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer 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 them.    

          As seen from Sub Section (1) of Section 39 of Insurance Act the policy holder is given a right to nominate a person before the policy matures for payment to whom the money is to be paid in the event of death of the policy holder.  The section provides only for an expeditious discharge of the liability of the insurer by providing that so far as the insurer is concerned the money is payable to the nominee and it need not look to the legal representatives of the deceased insured.  Thus Sub-Section 6 of Section 39 confers on the nominee the right to receive the insurance money but does not provide for the title or ownership of that money.

          Section 39 of the Act does not prescribe any qualification for being a nominee.   Hence any person or persons, natural or legal, related to the insured or a stranger can be appointed as nominee.

          Since Section 39 of the Act does not prescribe any qualification for being a nominee, any person closely related to the insured or a stranger to him can be appointed as a nominee.  Coming to case on hand the O.Ps did not settle the claim of complainant on the premise that there is dispute with regard to her title to claim the policy amount.  Even if it is believed that the complainant is not the adopted daughter of the deceased Vijaya Rama Rao and even if it is believed that she is a stranger to him the O.Ps are not justified in withholding the payment of policy amount.  It is not the case of O.Ps that the complainant was not appointed as a nominee of the deceased to receive the policy amount. 

          As per the observations made by the lordships of Supreme Court in Sarbathi Devi Vs Usha Devi’s case, Section 39 of Insurance Act does not confer on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the policy on the death of the insured but the nominee is authorized to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. 

          In view of the principles laid down by the lordships in the above said decisions, and as per the contents of the Section 39 of the Insurance Act the O.Ps are not entitled to question the status of the nominee to receive the amount payable under the policy of the deceased / insured.  The very act of O.Ps in asking the complainant to produce an adoption deed or succession certificate to receive the policy amount is an illegal act, on their part and as they did not settle the claim inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant, it can safely be held that there is deficiency of service on their part.

          Coming to case on hand no claim is made by any of the legal heirs of the deceased with regard to the payment of policy amount to the complainant.  Section 39 of the Act does not confer any right on the O.Ps to raise objection with regard to the status and relationship of nominee with that of the insured.  If there are any legal heirs to the deceased they can make claim on the policy amount against the nominee within 3 years from the date of knowledge of payment of such amount to the nominee.

          Since the O.Ps did not settle the claim of complainant inspite of receiving reply notice from the complainant we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency of service on their part and they are in dereliction of duties for not making payment of policy amount to the complainant.  Hence they are liable to pay policy amount with interest.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed and the O.Ps are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,098/- (Rupees forty thousand and ninety eight only) with interest @ 8 % p.a., from the date of making claim till the date of payment and they are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards damages for causing mental agony to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs which includes the advocate fee of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only).  The O.Ps are directed to comply the order within 2 months from today.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 29^th day of September, 2014.

Member                                                           President.

CC. 54 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1                                                                               

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 letter by the 1^st O.P. to complainant dt.31-12-2012
2. Ex.A.2 Reply letter dt.2-2-2013 with Postal receipt.

For O.P:-   

1. Ex.B.1 copy of Proposal Form (Annexure A)
2. Ex.B.2 copy of policy document (Annexure B) 
3. Ex.B.3 copy of claimant’s statement (Annexure C)
4. Ex.B.4 copy of Indemnity Bond (Annexure D)
5. Ex.B.5 copy of driving licence (Annexure E)
6. Ex.B.6 letter dt.31-8-2012 (Annx-F)
7. Ex.B.7 letter dt.31-12-2012 (Annx F3)
8. Ex.B.8 letter dt.31-11-2012 (Annx-F2)
9. Ex.B.9 reminder letter dt.31-9-2012 (Annx-F1)

Ex.B.10 transaction cum unit statement (Annx-G)

                                                                                                President.