AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
 Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Jujharsingh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, his client is widow of an insurance agent. Her husband died. Death
benefit is to be paid by the insurance company-opposite party no.1, to his client. Petitioenr was the nominee but before his death, petitioner’s
husband changed the nomination to be in favour of opposite party no.2. He submits, his client is class one heir and should get the death benefit.
Mr. Barik, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1 and submits, nominee is a trustee. So far as the benefit payable is concerned,
his client will get due discharge on paying the nominee. That was what was informed to petitioner. Appropriate direction may be made.
Mr. Sahu, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and submits, the nomination was duly made. Payment of the benefit to his
client cannot be interfered with.
It is true that petitioner is class one heir. It is also true that there is no dispute regarding nomination in favour of opposite party no.2 (brother-in-law)
as was duly made by the deceased. The insurance company is entitled to obtain discharge by paying the benefit to opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.2 will made payment to opposite party no.2, the death benefit, after four weeks from date. Petitioner is at liberty in the meantime
to obtain order from Civil Court.
The writ petition is disposed of..
.................................................