- (1.) BOTH appeals arise out of the order passed in O.P. No. 47/1999 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Srivilliputhur. The first opposite party in the complaint is the appellant in A.P. No. 8 of 2001 and the second opposite party is the appellant in A.P. No. 262 of 2001. Both appeals are disposed of by following common order.
(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the appeals are as under. One Sivaraman had taken an insurance policy with the first opposite party for Rs. 25,000. He had nominated his mother, Seethalakshmi. He had married the complainant and had a son Sathiyaseelan by name through her. He passed away on 27.5.1998. On 28.5.1998 his son also passed away. The complainant sent a communication to the first opposite party on 6.7.1998 stating that the insurance amount should not be given to the second opposite party. Notwithstanding the communication the first opposite party paid the amount to the second opposite party. In such circumstances, for the policy amount and for compensation for mental agony a sum of Rs. 50,000 was payable to her. Inasmuch as the insured had made his mother as nominee under the policy, the first opposite party was well within its rights in paying the amount due under the policy to the nominee namely the second opposite party. It was further contended that on 18.12.1998 the complainant had written to the first opposite party that she was heir to the deceased.
(3.) THE District Forum purported to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1984 AIR(SC) 346 to the effect that a mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Act would not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured, that the nomination only indicated the hand which was authorised to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer would get a valid discharge of its liability under the policy and held that the first opposite party was in error in paying the amount to the second opposite party. In our view, the decision reached by the District Forum cannot at all be sustained. No doubt a nominee is only a trustee or agent on behalf of all the legal representatives. But so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, its obligation is only to the nominee and once payment is made to the nominee its responsibility under the policy would cease and it is not answerable to any of the legal representatives. The District Forum was clearly in error in relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court for giving relief to the complainant. The complainant in the normal circumstances ought to have gone before the Civil Court and had the matter adjudicated. It has not been done. The legal position is that the Insurance Company is absolved of its liability once the payment is made to the nominee. Even the decision relied on by the District Forum for holding in favour of the complainant does not support her stand as rightly pointed out on behalf of the Insurance Company, the Supreme Court has only recognized entitlement of all the legal heirs to their shares even if there is any nomination. The nominee is the hand which is authorised to receive payment of the claim and it is for the legal heirs to look to the nominee to claim their shares. But so far as the present case is concerned, the District Forum was in error. The complaint ought to have been dismissed with a direction to the complainant to move the proper Forum for suitable relief.;