ASST. DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE Vs. KARAMKONDA SUSHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company directing it to pay Rs.19,945/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 19.07.2006 till the date of payment and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

(2.) The case of the complainant in brief is that her son, Sanjeev Kumar, was a police constable. During his service, he had taken an insurance policy for Rs.39,890/- nominating her as his nominee. While so, her son had died on 13.05.2004. When she approached, the appellant Insurance Company did not pay any benefits under the Insurance Policy. She gave a legal notice for which the opposite party gave a reply stating that it had paid the amount to the wife of her son viz. daughter-in-law, K.Prabhavathi as per law. In fact she was not the nominee and therefore, she was not entitled to the benefits and therefore, prayed that the complainant be paid.

(3.) The Insurance Company resisted the case. While admitting the issuance of policy in favour of the son of the complainant by name Sanjeev Kumar, it alleged that on the death of said Sanjeev Kumar, the amount was paid to K.Prabhavathi, she being the legal heir of the deceased. By virtue of Rule 31-A, APGLI, the nomination in favour of the mother would automatically cancel in case, the insured marries. In fact she has also given consent to her daughter-in-law to receive the amount. Since the amount was disbursed to the wife of the life assured, the Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.