Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Katha Kumari vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 14 February, 2024

Author: Ninala Jayasurya

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
                   WRIT PETITION No.21245 of 2023
Between:-

Katha Kumari                                                  .... Petitioner
                                    And
The Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Rep.by its Managing Director,
Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai, Maharashtra & Others.                            ..... Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner       : Mr.P.Sai Surya Teja

Counsel for the respondents      : Smt.Y.Maha Lakshmi
                                   Standing Counsel for LIC
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-Corporation.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the

respondents in not releasing the Additional Accident Benefit as mentioned

under the Life Insurance Policy Nos.803520314, 803593980, 804870025 and

806770558 to the petitioner, as contrary to the Law, illegal, arbitrary and

against the principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to

the respondents to release the Additional Accident Benefit in respect of the

above mentioned Life Insurance Policies along with interest accrued thereon

and to pass such other orders.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the

petitioner's husband one Mr.Katha Satyanarayana during his life time had

taken four Insurance Policies from the respondents. The details of which are

as tabulated below:

         Policy             Policy Name              Life       Additional
        Number                                     Insured      Accidental
                                                                  Benefit
 1   803520314        Jeevan Anand (T.No.149)    1,00,000/-     1,00,000/-

 2   803593980        New Bima Gold(T.No.179)    2,00,000/-     2,00,000/-

 3   804870025        New Jana Raksha            1,00,000/-     1,00,000/-
                      Plan(T.No.91)

 4   806770558        New Jeevan                 4,00,000/-     4,00,000/-
                      Anand(T.No.815)

                                                       Total     8,00,000/-

4. He submits that unfortunately, the petitioner's husband was murdered

on 10.09.2019 and a Crime No.261 of 2019 on the file of Tuni Police Station

for the offences under Sections 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC was registered and

the police after conducting investigation, filed a Charge Sheet for the

offences under Sections 307, 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC on 15.10.2019. He

submits that all the above mentioned four policies are in subsistence as on

the date of the death of the petitioner's husband i.e., 15.10.2019 and being

the wife, the petitioner's name was recorded as nominee in all the policies.

He submits that all the above said policies have an Additional Accident

Benefit wherein if the death of the policy holder is accidental, Additional

Benefit will be paid to the nominee apart from the insured amount. He

submits that after the death of the petitioner's husband, the same was

intimated to the respondent-authorities and after due verification, the

respondents paid the amounts for the life insured in respect of four

insurance policies. Be that as it may. The learned counsel submits that

apart from sum assured for the life, which has been paid by the respondents

undisputedly, the petitioner is also entitled for the Accident Benefit, but the

same have not been paid by the respondents. Under the said circumstances,

he submits that the petitioner made representation and in response to the

same, the 3rd respondent vide Communication dated 27.04.2022 asked the

petitioner to resubmit the file with the final Court judgment to consider the

request for payment of accident claims.

5. The learned counsel further submits that thereafter as no action has

been taken by the respondents, therefore the petitioner is constrained to

approach this Court for the relief sought for. He submits that non-payment

of Additional Accident Benefit despite payment of separate premium is not

just or tenable. He submits that the respondents having paid the amounts

towards life insured is not justified in releasing the Additional Accident

Benefit. He also submits that the petitioner is also entitled for interest on the

amounts which are due and payable to the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents made submissions with reference to the counter affidavit. She

submits that out of the four policies, the Policy No.803593980 for a sum of

Rs.2 lakhs was lapsed long back and as such the petitioner is not entitled for

any accident claim in respect of the said policy. Insofar as the other three

policies are concerned, she submits that the policy amount for the life

insured was already paid to the nominee i.e., the petitioner herein and

insofar as the Additional Accident Benefit amounts are concerned, the

Corporation is ready to pay the same as a special case in view of the

recommendations made by the Dispute Redressal Committee. She also

submits that the said aspect was already informed to the petitioner through

a letter dated 26.09.2023. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that one of the policy was expired is not true or correct.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the

material on record. Admittedly, the sum assured for life in respect of all the

four policies was paid to the petitioner. The only dispute is with regard to

the claim for Additional Accident Benefit and according to the respondents,

as one of the policies lapsed, the petitioner is not entitled for any Additional

Accident Benefit in respect of the said policy. In this regard, it is specifically

stated in the counter-affidavit that 'as per Condition No.4 of "Conditions and

Privileges" in the Policy Bond clearly states that the Accident Benefit Rider

will cease to apply if the Policy is in lapsed condition. During the Auto Cover

period, the Accident Benefit Rider shall not be available and therefore the

Accident so far is not payable on Policy No.803593980'.

8. In the light of the specific contention raised in the counter-affidavit,

the petitioner is not entitled for Additional Accident Benefit in respect of the

said policy. Insofar as other policies are concerned, it is relevant to extract

the averments in the counter-affidavit for ready reference:

"However, the Competent Authority had admitted the Accident Benefit on Policies 803520314, 804870025 & 806770558 as a special case with due recommendations from the Disputes Redressal Committee and we are ready to settle the Accident Benefit under the above three policies. We have already informed the petitioner vide our letter dated 26.09.2023 to submit the claim discharge forms and we will settle the accident benefit as and when forms are received."

9. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the

writ petition with a direction to the respondents to pay the Additional

Accident Benefit on Policy Nos. 803520314, 804870025 & 806770558 to the

petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four (4) weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the Corporation

shall also pay the interest as per the Rules in vogue on the amounts which

are due and payable to the petitioner.

10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall

be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand

closed.

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 14.02.2024 BLV

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA