Patna High Court
Anju Kumari SinhaversusThe Life Insurance Corporation of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
A nomination does not confer a beneficial interest; the death claim proceeds form part of the deceased’s estate and must be claimed under the applicable law of succession.
Summary
Anju Kumari Sinha, the widow of the deceased policyholder, filed a writ petition seeking the death claim proceeds of two LIC policies. LIC contended that the proceeds had already been paid to the recorded nominee, Uma Sinha, the mother of the deceased, and that any grievance must be pursued in a civil court under the Hindu Succession Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, which held that a nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act does not create a beneficial interest for the nominee; the proceeds become part of the deceased’s estate and are governed by succession law. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate forum for succession claims. The petition was therefore disposed.
Issues considered
- Does a nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act confer a beneficial right to the nominee over death claim proceeds?
- Are the death claim proceeds payable directly to the nominee or do they form part of the deceased’s estate subject to the Hindu Succession Act?
- What remedy is available to the petitioner for claiming the proceeds?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- life insurance
- nomination
- death claim
- Hindu Succession Act
- succession law
- insurance law
- civil writ
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12201 of 2025
======================================================
Anju Kumari Sinha Wife of Late Prashant Kumar Sinha, R/o Vindhvasini
Street, Pirmuhani, Kadamkuan, Patna- 800003.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Zonal Manager, Jeevan
Deep Building, Exhibition Road, Patna- 800001.
2. The Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- I, Patna Branch- I,
Jeevan Prakash, Frazer Road, Patna- 800001.
3. Uma Sinha R/o Vindhvasini Street, Pirmuhani, Kadamkuan, Patna- 800003.
4. Gaurav Sinha R/o Vindhvasini Street, Pirmuhani, Kadamkuan, Patna-
800003.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Mohan Singh, Adv.
For LIC : Mr. Rajni Kant Singh, Adv.
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
: Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
: Mr. Sandeep, Adv.
For Private Respondent : Mr. Rishi Sinha, Adv.
: Mr. Danish Raja, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajni Kant Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
7 17-06-2026 In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-LIC at
Para Nos. 6 & 7, it is specifically averred as under;
“6. That at the very outset the answering
respondents humbly state that the death claim proceeds with
respect to policies nos. 514608165 and 518370815 of the
deceased life assured i.e. husband of the petitioner has already
been made to the recorded nominee namely Uma Sinha who
happens to be the mother of the deceased policy holder.
7. That it is pertinent to mention here that the prior
to the payment of death claim proceeds of both the policies to the
recorded nominee namely Smt. 03.07.2025, the payment of the
survival benefits arising out of the said policies in question were
already made to the recorded nominee from time to time
commencing from 28.11.2012 to 28.10.2024 without any
objection and the same is evident from the status report of the
policies as contained in Annexure R/1 to this petition.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.12201 of 2025(7) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-LIC submits that the maturity amounts of the two
policies standing in the name of the deceased life assured have
already been paid to the nominee (i.e., the respondent Nos. 3 &
4 herein). Learned counsel submits that in case the petitioner
has any grievance, her remedy is to approach the Civil Court for
disbursal of the maturity amounts as per the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarbati
Devi And Another. Vs. Usha Devi reported in 1984 1 SCC 424
which reads as under;
“A mere nomination made under Section
39 of the Act does not have the effect of conferring
on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount
payable under the life insurance policy on the death
of the assured. The nomination only indicates the
hand which is authorized to receive the amount, on
the payment of which the insurer gets a valid
discharge of its liability under the policy. Under
Section 39 of the policy-holder continues to hold
interest in the policy during his lifetime and the
nominee acquires no sort of interest in the policy
during the lifetime of the policy-holder. Therefore,
on the death of the policy-holder the amount
payable under the policy becomes part of his estate
which is governed by the law of succession
applicable to him. Such succession may be
testamentary or intestate. Section 39 does not
operated as a third kind of succession which can be
styled as a ‘statutory testament’. A nominee cannot
be treated as being equivalent to an heir or legatee.
The amount received under the policy therefore, can
be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance
with the law of succession governing them.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.12201 of 2025(7) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
4. Having regard to the above, the present writ
petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner herein to
avail the remedies as available under law before an appropriate
forum.
5. With the above direction, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.