LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(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.