Nomination in insurance does not confer absolute rights; benefits are subject to distribution laws among legal heirs.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

3 16-12-2025 1. The petitioner is a widow of one Brijesh Mishra.

The writ application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent/Life Insurance Corporation and its authorities to pay the death claim benefits arising out of L.I.C. Policy No. 846938124 purchased in the name of deceased husband of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case is that petitioner was married to Brijesh Mishra on 24.11.2016 as per the Hindu Rites. The petitioner's husband was employed in Canara Bank as a senior manager. The husband of the petitioner died of cancer on 21.01.2021. During his lifetime, the petitioner's husband had purchased two insurance policies from L.I.C. in his name having a Policy No. 518925090 having the date of commencement on 11.12.2013. The maturity of the sum assured of the said policy was Rs. 5,51,000/- and death benefits assured was Rs. 5,00,000/-. The husband purchased another policy bearing Policy No. 846938124 having date of commencement on 19.06.2019. The sum assured of the said policy is Rs. 60,00,000/-. In the first policy bearing No. 518925090, the brother of the petitioner's husband, Shri Rishikesh Mishra, respondent no. 11, was nominated as a nominee. In the second policy, the petitioner was made as a nominee.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that after death of her husband, the petitioner came to know that respondent no. 11 has got his name inserted as nominee with respect to Policy No. 846938124. Insofar as Policy No. 518925090 is concerned, admittedly, respondent no. 11 has received the death-cum- maturity amount of this policy from L.I.C. to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The dispute is now with regard to Policy No. 846938124 of Rs. 60 lakhs in which the respondent no. 11 has been made nominee by the deceased.

4. Mr. Shekhar Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that while working in the Canara Bank, the husband of the petitioner was detected to be a patient of cancer in the year 2019 and died due to that ailment on 20.01.2021. After death of the petitioner's husband, respondent no. 10 and 11 i.e., mother-in-law and elder brother of the petitioner's husband tried to withdraw the entire benefits of the NPS of petitioner's husband from the bank and to get the amount settled in their favour. However, the said demand was turned down by the bank, leading to filing of writ petition by respondent no. 10 and 11 in C.W.J.C. No. 2846 of 2022 without adding the petitioner as party therein.

5. This Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 09.02.2023, directed them to add wife of the deceased, i.e., petitioner, as respondent no. 4 and accordingly, after notice, the petitioner appeared in the aforesaid writ application. The writ petition was heard in presence of the petitioner of the present case and respondent no. 10 and 11 herein and disposed vide order, dated 03.09.2024, after coming to the conclusion that as per the settled legal position, that nomination per se does not confer any exclusive beneficial interest on the nominee, the amount so received are to be distributed according to Hindu Succession Act , 1956. The respondent/Canara Bank was directed to release half of the amount of NPS or any other terminal benefit each to the petitioner no. 1 i.e., mother of the deceased as well as respondent no. 4 i.e., petitioner herein by dividing the same equally between two of them preferably within a period of four weeks.

6. Learned senior counsel further submits that insofar as the amount received towards death claim of petitioner’s husband with regard to first policy, bearing No. 518925090, has already been received by the nominee i.e., elder brother of the petitioner’s husband/respondent no. 11 herein, Petitioner reserves her right to claim that amount from respondent no. 11 in accordance with the provisions of relevant law before the appropriate forum.

7. He referred to the judgment of this Court inter parties rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 28