The Madras High Court (HC) has ruled that the wife is not entitled for a share in the insured money, if her deceased husband did not contribute towards the premium payment.
In a recent ruling, Justice S Vaidyanathan passed interim order on a petition from G Asha, wife of Ganesh Raja of Veppampattu in Tiruvallur district. In case the deceased husband had not made any contribution towards premium, there is no justification on the wife’s part to seek her share, Justice Vaidyanathan said.
Justice Vaidyanathan sought to know who had paid the insurance premium in its entirety till the demise of Ganesh Raja, whether it was his father or he himself has paid or contributed towards the premium payment.
Till the time the fact as to who had paid the premium to the insurance company and whether any single pie had been contributed by the deceased or not, is known, this court cannot decide the issue relating to the entitlement of the petitioner to claim a share in the maturity amount, the order said.
In case the deceased husband had not made any contribution towards premium, there is no justification on the wife’s part to seek her share, Justice Vaidyanathan said.
“It is no doubt true that wife, mother and children are class-I heirs of a male deceased and not the father. But the heirship will not be considered for this type of contingency, in case the entire contribution is not made by the deceased and the same has been paid only by the father of the deceased. In such circumstances, it is for the father of the deceased to decide to give the money in its entirety or in proportionate to any person, including class-I heirs,” the court order added.
If a deceased had already mentioned the nominee and if that person falls under the category of class-I heir other than father, then there would not be any problem in disbursement of the insurance proceeds.
However, in this case, if the lady’s father-in-law established that only he contributed towards the entire premium by way of bank transfer, (or any other means other than remittance by cash) for the insurance policy in the name of his son, then there is no justification on the part of the petitioner to seek for her share in the amount and she has no case at all, the judge said.
Further, Justice Vaidyanathan also directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to circulate a copy of the order to all its branches situated in Tamil Nadu and collect details of similar cases and produce them before the court on 28th June, the next date of hearing by way of counter.
Review: Max Bupa Senior First Health Insurance
Moneylife Digital Team
24 May 2021
Max Bupa Health Insurance has launched a new health insurance plan for senior citizens. The Max Bupa Senior First policy comes with no sub-limits for common health conditions, health check-up, no claim bonus, ‘ReAssure’ benefit and...
Importance of an emergency fund
17 May 2021
Mahesh works in the airline industry. In March 2020, when the Government announced a nationwide lockdown, all the airlines were grounded, and the cash inflows of Mahesh’s company dried up. The company delayed staff salaries for a...
COVID Insurance: IRDAI Asks Insurers To Continue To Renew and Sell Policies till 30th September
Moneylife Digital Team
12 May 2021
Many insurers have been refusing to renew Corona Kavach and Corona Rakshak insurance policies (the special COVID-19 policies) launched in 2020 to provide a cover for hospital treatment. Taking a serious note of the refusals by...
He Bought Health Insurance for Emergencies. Then He Fell Into a $ 33,601 Trap
Jenny Deam (ProPublica)
11 May 2021
Since the Trump administration deregulated the health insurance industry, there’s been an explosion of short-term plans that leave patients with surprise bills and providers with huge revenue.
In the spring of 2019, Cory...