MALLELA MANIMALA Vs. MALLELA LAKSHMI PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition with the following prayer: "to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of 4th respondent in attempting to give total maturity amount in connection with policy Nos. (i) ICICI Pru iProtect Smart bearing policy No.94425175 with life insurance cover of Rs.1,00,00,000.00 (Rupees one crore only) and (ii) ICICI Pru Savings Suraksha bearing policy No.94425126 with life insurance cover of Rs.1,60,000.00 (Rupees one lakh and sixty thousand only) taken by son of petitioner Ramesh Babu to 1st respondent who was nominated by the policy holder as illegal, arbitrary and against the right of petitioner as Class I heir of her son who died due to COVID-19 and declare the petitioner as class I heir of her late son Ramesh Babu along with respondents 1 to 3 and consequently direct 4th respondent to pay 1/4th of matured amount of the afore said policies to the petitioner"

(2.) The facts of the case in narrow compass are that the petitioner's son Ramesh Babu, who was working as Software Engineer in U.S.A., came down to India in February 2021 to serve his father ailing from COVID-19 and as the illluck would have it, himself affected with COVID-19 and died on 4/6/2021 while undergoing treatment leaving behind the petitioner, who is his mother and respondents 1 to 3 who are his wife and two minor children as his class I heirs. During his life time, Ramesh Babu obtained two insurance policies with 4th respondent i.e., (i) ICICI Pru iProtect Smart bearing policy No.94425175 for Rs.1,00,00,000.00 and (ii) ICICI Pru Savings Suraksha bearing policy No.94425126 for Rs.1,60,000.00. Thus, the total amount covered by the two policies is Rs.1,01,60,000.00. Ramesh Babu nominated the 1st respondent, who is his wife, as beneficial nominee in both the policies. Now, the bone of contention between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 is with regard to the policy amount. As per pleadings, while the petitioner claims that she being the mother and one of the class I heirs of his deceased son entitled to 1/4th share in the policy amount, the 1st respondent in her counter opposed the same on the main ground that as per the amended Sec. 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938, she alone is entitled to the said amount as she was shown as beneficial nominee. Her other contentions are that in respect of another policy obtained by her husband, the petitioner has already received 1/4th amount and that after the death of her husband, her parents-in-law necked her and children out of the house and they have no source of livelihood and now taking shelter in the house of her parents. The 4th respondent in his counter while admitting the two policies would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable as the issue is a private affair and the 4 th respondent is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner Sri Kolla Venkateswarlu, and Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, counsel for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri P.Sasidhar Reddy, Standing Counsel for 4th respondent.