BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (under Consumer Protection Act, 1986) OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FA NO.220 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.42 OF 2011
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, NIZAMABAD
Between:
The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Jeevan Jyothi Building,
Yellammagutta, Nizamabad.
…Appellant/Opposite party No.1
And
1) Silveri Rukmini W/o Laxminarsaiah,
Aged 55 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o H.No.10-14-1655, Sitharam Nagar,
Nizamabad.
…Respondent/Complainant
2) Smt.Silveri Latha @ Gangamani
W/o Late Narasimha Swamy,
Aged about 23 years, Occ: Household,
R/o H.No.10-14-1655, Sitharamnagar,
Nizamabad, at present, Gayathri Nagar,
Nizamabad.
…Respondent/Opposite party No.2
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri G.Anand Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M.Hamsa Raj-R1
R2-served through substituted service
FA NO.221 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.43 OF 2011
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, NIZAMABAD
Between:
The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Jeevan Jyothi Building,
Yellammagutta, Nizamabad.
…Appellant/Opposite party No.1
And
1) Silveri Rukmini W/o Laxminarsaiah,
Aged 55 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o H.No.10-14-1655, Sitharam Nagar,
Nizamabad.
…Respondent/Complainant
2) Smt.Silveri Latha @ Gangamani
W/o Late Narasimha Swamy,
Aged about 23 years, Occ: Household,
R/o H.No.10-14-1655, Sitharamnagar,
Nizamabad, at present, Gayathri Nagar,
Nizamabad.
…Respondent/Opposite party No.2
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri G.Anand Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M.Hamsa Raj-R1
R2-served through substituted service
FA NO.222 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.44 OF 2011
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, NIZAMABAD
Between:
The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Jeevan Jyothi Building,
Yellammagutta, Nizamabad.
…Appellant/Opposite party No.1
And
1) Silveri Rukmini W/o Laxminarsaiah,
Aged 55 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o H.No.10-14-1655, Sitharam Nagar,
Nizamabad.
…Respondent/Complainant
2) Smt.Silveri Latha @ Gangamani
W/o Late Narasimha Swamy,
Aged about 23 years, Occ: Household,
R/o H.No.10-14-1655, Sitharamnagar,
Nizamabad, at present, Gayathri Nagar,
Nizamabad.
…Respondent/Opposite party No.2
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri G.Anand Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M.Hamsa Raj-R1
R2-served through substituted service
FA NO.248 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.42 OF 2011
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, NIZAMABAD
Between:
Silveri Rukmini W/o Laxminarsaiah,
Aged 58 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o H.No.10-14-1655, Sitharam Nagar,
Nizamabad.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
1) The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Jeevan Jyothi Building,
Yellammagutta, Nizamabad.
2) Smt.Silveri Latha @ Gangamani
W/o Late Narasimha Swamy,
Major, Occ: Household,
R/o H.No.10-14-1655, Sitharamnagar,
Nizamabad, at present, Gayathri Nagar,
Nizamabad.
…Respondents/Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri M.Hamsa Raj
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri G.Anand Kumar-for R1
R2-served through substituted service
FA NO.249 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.43 OF 2011
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, NIZAMABAD
Between:
Silveri Rukmini W/o Laxminarsaiah,
Aged 58 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o H.No.10-14-1655, Sitharam Nagar,
Nizamabad.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
1) The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Jeevan Jyothi Building,
Yellammagutta, Nizamabad.
2) Smt.Silveri Latha @ Gangamani
W/o Late Narasimha Swamy,
Major, Occ: Household,
R/o H.No.10-14-1655, Sitharamnagar,
Nizamabad, at present, Gayathri Nagar,
Nizamabad.
…Respondents/Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri M.Hamsa Raj
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri G.Anand Kumar-for R1
R2-served through substituted service
FA NO.250 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.44 OF 2011
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, NIZAMABAD
Between:
Silveri Rukmini W/o Laxminarsaiah,
Aged 58 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o H.No.10-14-1655, Sitharam Nagar,
Nizamabad.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
1) The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Jeevan Jyothi Building,
Yellammagutta, Nizamabad.
2) Smt.Silveri Latha @ Gangamani
W/o Late Narasimha Swamy,
Major, Occ: Household,
R/o H.No.10-14-1655, Sitharamnagar,
Nizamabad, at present, Gayathri Nagar,
Nizamabad.
…Respondents/Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri M.Hamsa Raj
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri G.Anand Kumar-for R1
R2-served through substituted service
CORAM :
Hon’ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal … President
and
K.Ramesh … Member
Tuesday, the Twentieth day of November,
Two thousand Eighteen
Oral Order :
***
FA No.220/2014 & FA No.248/2014 :
Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 05.03.2014 passed in CC No.42/2011 by the District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad, the Opposite party No.1 therein filed the appeal being FA No.220/2014 seeking to set aside the same.
Dissatisfied with orders dated 05.03.2014 insofar as specific direction to submit succession certificate is concerned, the Complainant in CC No.42/2011 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad filed the appeal being FA No.248/2014 seeking to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondent No.1 to release the policy benefits without insisting for Succession Certificate.
FA No.221/2014 & FA No.249/2014 :
Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 05.03.2014 passed in CC No.43/2011 by the District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad, the Opposite party No.1 therein filed the appeal being FA No.221/2014 seeking to set aside the same.
Dissatisfied with orders dated 05.03.2014 insofar as specific direction to submit succession certificate is concerned, the Complainant in CC No.43/2011 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad filed the appeal being FA No.249/2014 seeking to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondent No.1 to release the policy benefits without insisting for Succession Certificate.
FA No.222/2014 & FA No.250/2014 :
Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 05.03.2014 passed in CC No.44/2011 by the District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad, the Opposite party No.1 therein filed the appeal being FA No.222/2014 seeking to set aside the same.
Dissatisfied with orders dated 05.03.2014 insofar as direction to submit succession certificate, the Complainant in CC No.44/2011 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad filed the appeal being FA No.250/2014 seeking to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondent No.1 to release the policy benefits without insisting for Succession Certificate.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that she is the mother of one S.Narasimha Swamy, who was working as Junior Lineman at Gannaram sub-station. Said S.Narasimha Swamy obtained policy bearing No.600972862 from the Opposite party No.1 for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- showing the Complainant as nominee. The said policy holder died on 02.05.2011 accidentally due to electric shock while in duty. As on the date of his death, the policy was in force, the Complainant being nominee, requested the Opposite party No.1 to pay the death benefits, which they failed and which necessitated her to file three different complaints for different policies. The Opposite party No.2 is the legally wedded wife of deceased life assured.
4) In respect of policy No.600972862 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which commenced on 05.03.2009, complaint being CC No.42/2011 is filed. In respect of policy No.600972361 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which commenced on 25.09.2008, complaint being CC No.43/2011 is filed. In respect of policyNo.600975057 for an assured sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with extended term benefit of Rs.1,50,000/- and accident benefit of Rs.3,00,000/- which commenced on 28.12.2009, complaint being CC No.44/2011 is filed. In all the above three policies, the Complainant is shown as nominee.
5) In all the three complaints, the Opposite party No.1 resisted the claim by way of filing written version admitting the issuance of policy in the name of deceased life assured and also admitting the claim of Complainant as nominee. It denied to have received any intimation of death of the policy holder and only after receipt of notices from the forum below, they had knowledge. Immediately after receipt of notice, they said to have sent the claim forms but till filing of the written version, they are not in receipt of the claim forms duly filled-in from the complainant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6) Subsequently, per orders dated 10.01.2012, the Opposite party No.2 was brought on record. The Opposite party No.2 filed her written version contending that she being wife is entitled for the benefits covered by the policies as per Hindu Succession Act, which the Complainant had suppressed the material fact. Hence, prayed to disburse the policy amount in pursuance of Hindu Succession Act.
7) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the Complainant got filed her evidence affidavit and that of her son by name S.V. Prasad and the documents Exs.A1 to A7; on behalf of the Opposite party No.1 got filed the affidavit evidence of one K.Madan Mohan Rao and the documents Ex.B3 and B4 while Opposite party No.2 filed her affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.B1 and B2.
8) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaints in part directing the Complainant to submit succession certificate to Opposite party No.1 and on receipt of the same, the Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the insurance amount covered by the policies with interest @ 9% per annum to the Complainant and Opposite party No.2 as per their share, from the date of complaint i.e., 24.09.2011 till realisation.
9) Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appellant/Opposite party No.1 preferred the appeals FA No.220/2014, 221/2014 and 222/2014 contending that the forum below failed to consider the fact that there is no negligence and deficiency of service on their part in settling the claim and that awarding of interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint without receiving the claim forms along with necessary documents is against the settled principles of law. The forum below failed to see that no evidence is produced showing submission of claim forms and original policy bonds for processing the claims. Hence, prayed to set aside the orders dated 05.03.2014 passed in three complaints.
10) The point that arises for consideration are :
1) Whether there are any irregularities or infirmities in the orders passed by the forum below in directing the Appellants in FA No.220/2014, 221/2014 and 222/2014 to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation? To what relief?
2) Whether there are any irregularities or infirmities in the orders passed by the forum below in directing the Appellants in FA No.248/2014, 249/2014 and 250/2014 to submit the Succession Certificate to receive the amounts covered under the policies in question? To what relief?
11) It is not in dispute that the Appellant in FA No.248/2014, 249/2014 and 250/2014 is the mother of the deceased life assured as also the Respondent No.2 in all the appeals is the wife of deceased S.Narasimha Swamy. It is further not in dispute that the deceased life assured obtained the policies bearing Nos.600972862 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- commenced on 05.03.2009, policy bearing No.600972361 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- commenced on 25.09.2008 and the policy bearing No.600975057 for an assured sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with extended term benefit of Rs.1,50,000/- and accident benefit of Rs.3,00,000/- which commenced on 28.12.2009. It is also not in dispute that the deceased life assured died on 02.05.2011 accidentally due to electric shock. The only dispute is that the Appellants suppressed the material fact of survival of wife of the deceased life assured and that the Complainant and Opposite party No.2 failed to submit any claim form so far. It is also not in dispute that the claimants failed to submit the claim form to the Insurance Company.
12) A perusal of the orders passed by forum below would establish that claim forms were never furnished to the Insurance Company though it is alleged that they were furnished without placing any evidence to that effect. Having observed the same, the forum below passed orders granting interest @ 9% per annum without there being any deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company. Both the Complainant and Opposite party No.2 fairly contended that they are related to the deceased as mother and wife respectively, which is proved by way of adducing evidence, which is not rebutted. Admittedly, the original policy bond which is marked as exhibit is on the file of District Forum, as such, it can safely be inferred that the claimants failed to submit the claim form complying all the requirements, without which, the Insurance Company could not process the claim. Knowing fully well that the claim cannot be processed without the original bond, the claimants failed to take any steps in that regard and have approached this Commission with the counter-appeals claiming to dispense with producing of Succession Certificate.
13) From the arguments put-forth by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, it is crystal clear that they are ready to pay the death benefits covered by the policies in dispute to the claimants, provided interest is waived off since there is no deficiency of service on their part. Insofar as producing the succession certificate is concerned, it can be ordered when there is a dispute in between the parties.
14) The next aspect of the matter is as to whom the insurance company is liable to pay the amounts covered by the three policies referred to above. The nominee is the person selected by the policy holder to receive the benefit in case of death of the life assured thus giving a valid discharge to the insured on settlement of claim under a life insurance policy. As already stated, there is a valid nomination made by the deceased insured in favour of his mother Smt.Silveri Rukmini, the Complainant herein. She is the person selected by the policy-holder to receive the benefit in case of his death and it is she being the nominee, is competent to give a valid discharge to the insurance company on settlement of claims under a life insurance policy.
15) There is no quarrel with the proposition that the nomination is different from legal entitlement. There may be many legal heirs of the deceased who will be entitled to share the proceeds from out of the insurance policies, which on being received, by a competent nominee, becomes an estate in the hands out of which all the legal heirs are entitled to claim the respective shares in accordance with law which governs them.
16) In the instant case, admittedly, the nominee is the mother and the insured has left behind his widow who is the other Opposite party in the complaint and it is not known as to who are the other legal heirs left behind by the deceased insured. Even the widow, the second Opposite party/Respondent who contested the complaint case has not chosen to contest the appeals and notices sent to her could not be served and even the attempts made by the Commission to secure her presence by paper publication also proved futile. The second respondent was a young widow and her where-abouts are not known, therefore, the insurance company which is holding the amounts payable to the insured in spite of their being valid nomination, cannot be allowed since the beneficiaries will be deprived of the fruits of the wise gesture of the deceased insured who took policies to secure the future of his family. If the insurance company is allowed to retain the amounts, which it is legally liable to pay to the nominee, it amounts to unjust enrichment at the cost of the poor family members of the insured.
17) The proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are summary in nature and the complicated questions of law as to who are all the legal heirs of the deceased insured and who are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased cannot be adjudicated. Needless to say that it is always open to the legal heirs of the deceased to proceed in accordance with law by which they are governed to claim the respective shares and the complainant mother having received the money in the capacity of the nominee, cannot deny the entitlement of the other heirs, if their claim is proved in a competent court of law.
18) As already observed above, the forum did direct the insurance company to pay the proceeds of the policies but made it condition precedent for production of the succession certificate which is not required so far as the contractual obligation of the insurance company vis-à-vis, the insured and the nominee is concerned. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned forum erred in directing the claimants to product the succession certificate before laying their claim on the amounts. There is no gain saying the fact that obtaining the succession certificate and adjudicating the contentious issues about the legal heirs of the deceased is a long drawn process and till that time, the insurance company cannot be allowed to hold the money of the insured, more particularly, when there is a valid nomination made by the insured during his lifetime. Even at the cost of repetition, it can be said that merely because the nominee can give valid discharge, it does not become the absolute property of the nominee who is amenable to the law and it will only be a custodian of the estate of the deceased till such time as the aspect as to who are all the legal heirs of the deceased is not determined. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this direction of the consumer forum calling upon the complainant to produce the succession certificate before claiming the amounts cannot be upheld. The direction is liable to be set aside.
19) In view of the afore-going discussions, the appeals are liable to be disposed directing the insurance company who is the appellant in three appeals i.e., FA No.220/2014, 221/2014 and 222/2014 to pay the amounts to Smt.Silveri Rukmini, the Complainant who is the appellant in three appeals i.e., FA No.248/2014, 249/2014 and 250/2014, however, without paying interest thereon as ordered by the forum and the Complainant is directed to submit a bond of indemnity to the extent of the amounts being received by her to the effect that she will be holding the proceeds of the insurance policies as an estate of the deceased and as a legal custodian until the claims, if any, raised by the legal heirs are settled. However, it is directed that once the Complainant submits the claim forms and the indemnity bond as directed above, the insurance company should pay the amounts within four weeks from the said date, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till the amount is paid to her.
20) IN THE RESULT, all the appeals are allowed subject to the directions contained in paragraph No.19, supra. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 20.11.2018
