IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Manjulata Muduli - Appellant
Versus
The Lic of India, Division Office, Cuttack & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.10506 of 2024
Decided On : 03-05-2024
INSURANCE - DEATH BENEFITS - The court emphasized that a nominee under an insurance policy does not have a beneficial interest in the policy amount upon the death of the policyholder. Instead, the amount becomes part of the deceased's estate, governed by succession laws, allowing legal heirs to claim the benefits proportionately.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, claiming to be the legal heir of a deceased policyholder, sought a direction for the release of death benefits from LIC of India, which had not been disbursed despite submission of relevant documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court referenced a Supreme Court decision clarifying that a nominee does not acquire beneficial interest in the insurance amount, which instead forms part of the deceased's estate, to be distributed according to succession laws.
Issues: Whether the nominee of an insurance policy has a beneficial interest in the policy amount upon the death of the policyholder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a mere nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act does not confer beneficial interest; the policy amount is part of the deceased's estate and should be claimed by legal heirs according to applicable succession laws.
Final Decision: The court directed LIC to release the death benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased policyholder proportionately within one month of presenting the order.
ORDER
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner claiming herself to be the legal heir of the deceased depositor/policy holder, has sought for a direction from this Court to the Branch Manager, LIC of India, Division Office, Cuttack/Opposite Party No.l for releasing the death benefits in respect of the Policy No.8490640l5 in her favour as well as in favour of the proforma Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5 proportionately.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that after death of the deceased policy holder though the Petitioner submitted all relevant documents before the competent authority, the insured amount has not been disbursed in her favour till today.
5. He further draws the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishin N. Khanchandani and Anr. Vrs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 724. The relevant portion of the above noted decision is extracted herein below:-
' 10. The Court further held that the Delhi High Court committed a mistake in not properly appreciating the judgment in B.M. Mundkur V. LIC of India : AIR 1977 Mad 72 : 47 Com Cas 19 : (1977) 1 MLJ 59. The Court found that the reasons given by the Delhi High Court were not tenable. It was held that a mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Insurance Act did not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicated the hand which was authorized to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer got a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The policy-holder continued to have an interest in the policy during his lifetime of the policy-holder. On the death of the policy-holder, the amount payable under the policy became part of his estate which was governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Such succession may be testamentary or inte-state. Section 39 did not operate as a third kind of succession which could be styled as a statutory testament. A nominee could not be treated as being equivalent to an heir or legatee. The amount of interest under the policy could, therefore, be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them. '
6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner and looking to the decision cited hereinabove, this Court without going into the merits of the case directs the Opposite Party Nos.l & 2 to take steps for releasing the entire claim amount/death benefit relating to the above noted policy in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased depositor proportionately within a period of one month from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order.
7. It is further directed that since the nominee is the custodian, he is duty bound to hand-over the entire amount to the legal heirs of the deceased.
8. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
B.M. Mundkur V. LIC of India : AIR 1977 Mad 72 : 47 Com Cas 19 : (1977) 1 MLJ 59
Vishin N. Khanchandani and Anr. Vrs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr.
Nominees in insurance policies are receiving hands; legal heirs retain rights to claim amounts, especially in cases of hardship.
Nominees of insurance policies are obligated to distribute proceeds among rightful heirs according to succession law.
Nomination in insurance does not confer absolute rights; benefits are subject to distribution laws among legal heirs.
Nominees of life insurance policies do not have exclusive beneficial interest; amounts are to be distributed according to the law of succession.
Nomination under the Insurance Act, 1938, does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee, and the amount payable under the insurance policy is subject to be disbursed amongst the legal heirs ....
Nomination in insurance does not confer absolute rights over terminal benefits, which pertain to legal heirs under succession laws.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.