JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Tadasina Alekhya, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Battula Raj Kiran, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e., the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short, the LIC) and its authorities.

2. For the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to the unofficial respondent No.4 is dispensed with.

3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in changing the nominee name high handedly, without following due procedure and seeking to disburse the amounts under Policy Nos.673751840, 673841179, 673841180, 673670739 into 4th respondent by passing of order dated 08.11.2022 thereby rejecting my claims as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently, direct the Respondents to pay the amounts under the above policies to the petitioner with nominal interest of 12 percent till the date of payment and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. The petitioner's paternal uncle i.e. her father's brother, Lingala Sai Babu, was the policy holder of some policies from LIC under 3 policy Nos.673751840, 673841179, 673841180, 673670739, the petitioner was made nominee by the policyholder. The policyholder died on 02.07.2022. The petitioner claimed the amount under the policy. Her submission is that the original policy is with the petitioner and consequently no change could be made in the ‘nominee’ as the original policy document is required for making such change, and consequently the claim in favour of the 4th respondent is not justified.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that change in the nominee from the petitioner's name to the 4th respondent in the policies of the policy holder was without following due procedure and consequently the rejection of the petitioner's claim by the authorities and their proceeding to make payment to the 4th respondent is illegal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is entitled for the payment of claim amount under the policy, as the policyholder executed will dated 21.12.2021 in favour of the petitioner.

7. On 09.02.2023 this Court passed the following order:-

“1. Ms. Kotha Veera Naga Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s paternal uncle was the policy holder of various policies of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, out of which in 3 of the policies, the petitioner was made the nominee after change of the earlier nominee. The policy holder died on 02.07.2022. The petitioner submitted the claim, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 08.11.2022, with respect to the policy Nos. 1) 673751840, 2) 673841179 and 3) 3673841180, on the ground that the nominee in those policies is the respondent No.4, Lingala Dilip Kumar, who was made nominee after changing the petitioner’s name and consequently, the claim under the policy shall be settled in favour of the respondent No.4, without any reference to the petitioner.

2. It is further submitted that the original policies are with the petitioner and for change in the nominee, the original policies are required. The copies of the policies as annexed with the petition does not show the respondent No.4 as nominee and it is the petitioner whose name is there as nominee. She further submits that, if some change is made in the nominee, the prescribed procedure has to be followed.

3. Sri Rajesh, learned counsel, representing Sri B.Raj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, raised preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is raising the dispute of nominee, which is a disputed question of fact and can be determined in s