Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/17/2017

S.Srinivasa Rao, S/o S.Ramamurthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

K.Vijaya kumar

23 Nov 2017

ORDER

                                                                                                            Filing Date: 01-04-2017                                                                                                               Order Date: 23-11-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

THURSDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

C.C.No.17/2017

Between

S. Srinivasa Rao,

S/o. S.Ramamurthy,

Hindu, aged 55 years,

D.No.18-1-223, Umamaheswara Rao Buildings,

Bhavani Nagar,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                  … Complainant

 

And

The Senior Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Branch-1,

Narasimha Theertham Road,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                             … Opposite party.

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 08.11.2017 and upon perusing the complaint, and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing  Sri.K.Vijay Kumar,  counsel for the complainant and Sri.A.Sudarsana Babu, counsel for the opposite party,  having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum makes the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

        This complaint is filed under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaining deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party 1) to pay the claim amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on the policies along with interest at 24% p.a. from 30.07.2016 to the complainant, 2) to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service, and to pay costs of the complaint.

          2. The brief facts of the case are:-  The wife of the complainant B.Prabhavati obtained two life insurance policies bearing Nos.844812017 and 840085869, for the sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- each in her life time, and she availed loan on 14.07.2015 by depositing the said insurance policies with the opposite party and the said policies are in the custody of the oppositeparties. The policy holder B.Prabhavathi died with illhealth on 10.06.2016 leaving behind the complainant as her sole legal heir and successor. The complainant further submits that being the sole legal heir, he approached the opposite party and requested to give the benefits of LIC policies to him, but the opposite party postponed to settle the claim benefits to the complainant. Again on 30.07.2016, the complainant made a representation to the opposite party for the settlement of the claim benefits pertaining to his wife, but the opposite party refused to pay the same. Hence, finally on 17.08.2016 the complainant caused a legal notice to the opposite party and the same was received by the opposite party. On 12.09.2016 the opposite party gave a reply, stating that they are bound to settle the claim benefits to the nominee whose name was mentioned in the policy copy. Hence, the complainant stated that being the legal heir, he is entitled for the policy amount pertaining to his deceased wife. Hence, he filed the present complaint by complaining deficiency in service on part of the opposite party towards the complainant.  

         3.  The opposite party filed the written version by admitting the policies, which were taken by the complainant’s wife in her life time and denied the rest of the allegations mentioned in the complaint, and further submits that the policy holder took the loan by depositing the policies. After the death of the policy holder, one B.Annapurna, who is the nominee and mother of the deceased policy holder, approached the opposite party and submitted her claim on 10.06.2016, and the opposite party settled the death claim in favour of the nominee and paid the policy amount through NEFT payment on 22.09.2016. The opposite party further stated that, they received the legal notice on 17.08.2016 from the advocate for the complainant, claiming the death benefits of the life assured. Soon after receiving the legal notice, opposite party gave reply on 12.09.2016 stating that the nomination was registered in favour of B.Annapurna, who is the mother of the deceased life assured and they will settle the claim in favour of the nominee only. As per the rules and regulations and norms of the organization, the benefits will be settled in the name of the policy holder, if she is alive as on the date of maturity. If the policy holder died, the benefits will be settled in the name of the nominee only. The very purpose of clause of nominee is to pay the benefits to that particular person only in the event of death of the policy holder. If there is any rival claim and if there is any order of the court of law to that extent, restricting the LIC of India from paying the death benefits of the policy holder to the nominee, then only the LIC of India will kept the payment in abeyance till the disposal of the litigation before the Hon’ble Court. In this particular case, the complainant has not obtained any court order restricting the payment of the policy amount to the nominee, and also he has not submitted any succession certificate issued by the court of law. Hence, in the absence of any prohibitory order restricting the opposite party in settling the claim in favour of the nominee, the opposite party followed the procedure as per the rules and regulations and settled the claim in the name of the nominee only. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on part of them and they rightly settled the claim in the name of the nominee and prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint.

        4.  The complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the opposite party one S.Vamsi Mohan, Manager, City Branch-I, LIC of India, Tirupati, filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B7. Both the parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.   

       5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

(ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

(iii). To what relief?

          6. Point (i):-      There is no dispute regarding the policies taken by the insured       B. Prabhavati from the opposite party at her life time and same was admitted by the opposite parties. The main case of the complainant is, his wife B.Prabhavati died on 10.06.2016 leaving behind him as a legal heir. Hence he approached the opposite party and submitted his claim on 30.07.2016, but the opposite parties refused to receive the same. Hence he caused a legal notice on 17.08.2016 under Ex:A5 and same was received by the opposite party on 18.08.2016 and gave a reply notice on 12.09.2016 under Ex:A7 by stating that they are bound to settle the claim to the nominee only. The counsel for the complainant further stated that the complainant who is the husband and sole legal heir of the insured B.Prabhavati and he is entitled for the claim benefits of two policies bearing nos. 844812017 and 840085869, but the opposite party made payment to the nominee one B. Annapurna by ignoring the objection and the demand of the complainant which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite party.

        The counsel for the complainant further argued that according to law, nominee will hold the money or asset as trusty and will be legally bound to transfer it to the legal heirs and further stated that as per Section 39 of Insurance Act says; the appointed nominee will be paid, though he may not be the legal heir. The nominee in turn is supposed to hold the proceeds in trust and the legal heir can claim the money. The legal heirs will be one who mentioned in a will, if a will is not made and then the legal heirs of the assets are decided according to the succession laws. The counsel for the complainant further argued that the opposite party is aware, that the nominee will not having absolute right over the amounts and legal heirs who will entitle for the amount.

      When the claim is made by the husband of the deceased who is a class-I legal heir. It is the duty of the opposite party to keep the amounts in abeyance if there is any rival claim and direct the parties to approach proper forum. But in this case the opposite party instead of doing so, intentionally settled the claim in favour of the nominee by ignoring the legal notices issued by the complainant and also the complainant relied decision in AIR 1984 Supreme Court Page 346, the Division Bench clearly held “ Insurance Act (04/1938), Section 39 - nominee of the life insurance policy - does not get absolute right to the amount due – decision of Allahabad High Court reversed. AIR 1962   ALL 355; AIR 1978 Delhi 276 and AIR 1982 Delhi 36, over-ruled”. In this case also Ex:A1 and Ex:A5 are prior to the settlement of claim by the opposite parties. The opposite party intentionally played the mischief and settled the amount in favour of the nominee because the settlement is made subsequent to the notices of the complainant which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite party.

      The counsel for the opposite party admitted the policies of the B.Prabhavati and upon receipt of the death intimation supported by the death certificate and claim form from the nominee B. Annapurna who is none other than the mother of the deceased and also stated that as per the norms of the policy, the death benefits was settled in favour of the nominee through NEFT payment on 22.09.2016 and further stated that after receipt of the legal notice dt:17.08.2016 they have given reply notice on 12.09.2016 and stating the nomination was registered in the name of B. Annapurna and the amounts will be paid only to nominee and not the third party.

       The complainant who alleging himself to be a sole legal heir and successor of the deceased life assured has not produced any certificate from the competent court of law, declaring that the complainant alone is entitled to get death benefits. Hence in the absence any such direction, from the Honourble Court of Law the death benefits were naturally settled on the nominee. Hence the benefits of the deceased life assured were settled in the name of nominee as the complainant failed to get any prohibitory order of the court or any succession certificate issued by court of law. Hence as they acted in due process of law as they acted upon the circular of C.O. Ref. Mktg/ CS dt: 03.06.1993 under Ex:A7. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party and prayed the forum that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

       As per the evidence available on record, there is no dispute regarding the policies taken by the insured under Ex:B5 policy No. 840085869 dt: 28.06.1996 in the above said policy the name of the nominee is mentioned as B. Annapurna who is the mother of the insured and the policy under Ex:B1 No.844812017 dt: 28.06.2011 in this policy also B. Annapurna was appointed as a nominee. And also as per Ex:A7 dt:12.09.2016 in the reply letter the opposite party clearly stated that  they will settle the claim in favour of one B.Annapurna whose name was mentioned as nominee in the above said claims. If there is any objection the complainant might have approached the court of law and obtained any prohibitory order to restrain the payment of the insured amount to the nominee. The complainant relied decision in AIR 1984 Supreme Court Page 346, the division bench clearly held “ Insurance Act (04/1938), Section 39 - nominee of the life insurance policy - does not get absolute right to the amount due – decision of Alahabad High Court reversed. AIR 1962   ALL 355; AIR 1978 Delhi 276 and AIR 1982 Delhi 36, over-ruled”. The facts of the above case are entirely different than the facts of the case on hand and also in the present case the complainant has not filed any succession certificate which was issued by any court of law by declaring him as a legal heir and successor of the deceased insured B.Prabhavati. Hence if at all he is having any legal right over the assured amount he has to approach proper Forum. Hence in the absence of any material on record to show that the complainant is the legal heir of the deceased and same was filed before this forum for proper adjudication that he submitted before the opposite party for the process of the claim. The complainant failed to prove that he is the legal heir of the deceased insured and also the successor of the estate of the deceased. Hence we cannot hold deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. Hence this point is answered against the complainant.     

7. Point (ii):-      As the point no.1 is discussed against the complainant the there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party the entitlement would not arise.          

8. Point (iii):-      In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and   pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 23^rd day of November, 2017.

      Sd/-                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                                                                    President

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

PW-1:  S. Srinivasa Rao (Evidence Affidavit filed).

                         Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

RW-1:   Vamsi Mohan (Chief Affidavit filed).

                         EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Representation issued by the complainant. Dt: 30.07.2016.
	Original mee seva copy of  Death Certificate bearing No.AP03 42527449 of the Policy Holder B. Prabhavathi issued by Registrar of Birth and Deaths, The Municipal Corporation, Chittoor Dt. Dt: 02.07.2016.
	Original mee seva copy of Family Member Certificate bearing No.AP02 61287085 in favour of S. Srinivasa Rao the complainant herein issued by the Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal. Dt: 26.07.2016.
	Photo copy of Status Report of the Policy No.844812017 issued by Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch-713, Tirupati. Dt: 14.06.2016.
	Office copy of Legal Notice issued to the opposite party along with postal receipt bearing No.ARN553089312IN dated 18.08.2016. Dt: 17.08.2016.
	Acknowledgement Card for the above No.5.Dt: 01.04.2017.
	Original copy of Reply letter of the opposite party to the counsel of the complainant. Dt: 12.09.2016.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Attested photo copy of the policy bearing No.844812017. Dt: 28.06.2011.
	Attested photo copy of the filled in proposal for insurance on own life of policy No.844812017. Proposal No.1632. Dt: 28.06.2011.
	Attested photo copy of the letter of nominee. Dt: 15.09.2016.
	Attested photo copy of the discharge voucher. Dt: 22.09.2016.
	Attested photo copy of the policy No.840085869. Policy Date of Commencement: 28.06.1996. Dt: 20.07.1996.
	Attested photo copy of the filled in proposal form of the policy No.840085869. Dt: 26.06.1996.
	Attested photo copy of the Circular Ref: Mktg/CS, Cir.No.342/23/93. Dt: 03.06.1993.

                                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                                                                   

                    President

// TRUE COPY //

                                               // BY ORDER //

 

                                          Head Clerk/Sheristadar, 

                                              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

  Copies to:  1) The Complainant,   

                    2) The Opposite party.