Mamata Nayak @ Rajashree Sahoo v. Life Insurance Corporation Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.31961 Of 2020 (Through hybrid mode) Mamata Nayak @ Rajashree Sahoo ....

Petitioner Mr. K.R. Mohanty, Advocate -versusLife Insurance Corporation of India and another ....

Opposite Parties Ms. Samapika Mishra, Advocate Mr. K.A. Guru, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Order No.

ORDER

02.08.2022 5.

1.

Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, his client is a widow. Her deceased husband held two policies, mentioned in the writ petition. His client wants, there be direction for distributing maturity amount of the policy amongst legal heirs of the deceased.

2.

Mr. Guru, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and submits, nominee named in the policies is his client, father of the deceased. He submits, investigation is pending on cause of death of his client's son. There is suspicion that petitioner was involved. Ms. Samapika Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of the insurance company.

// 2 // 3.

On query from Court parties submit, there is a minor son. Mr. Guru submits, his client has agreed to share the insurance money equally between the daughter-in-law, minor son and himself. 4.

Opposite party no.1 is directed to disburse 1/3rd of the insurance money to opposite party no.2 and balance to petitioner. Disbursement can be made simultaneously, for the insurance company to ensure discharge from its liabilities, to be executed by petitioner and opposite party no.2. It is made clear that Court relies upon submissions made on behalf of petitioner that she is taking care of the minor son, for direction upon the insurance company to pay 2/3rd of the insurance money, to her.

5.

The insurance company will pay in compliance of the direction within two weeks of communication by either petitioner or opposite party no.2 or both.

6.

The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks