IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14217 of 2007 MOSTT.JYOTI @ JYOTI MEHRA Versus THE REGIONAL MANAGER,LIC.OF INDIA & ORS. ----------- 6 22.8.2008 The writ petition was filed by the petitioner , who wanted two insurance policies taken out by her late husband to be honoured by the respondent- Life Insurance Corporation of India and payment made to her. The Corporation has appeared and so has petitioner’s mother in law, the mother of late husband of the petitioner. On behalf of LIC it is submitted that so far as first policy taken in the year 1999 is concerned, in the said policy mother was shown as nominee, which name was not changed even after the marriage of the petitioner with the son of the private respondent. LIC has since paid the amount. It is stated that so far as first policy is concerned, the private- respondent being a nominee they have made payment to her, which is accepted by the private-respondent. I may only clarify here the law in this regard. A payment made to a nominee is a valid payment in discharge of an obligation created under contact or by law. Thus, LIC is discharged of its liability by making payment to the nominee, but so far as money held or received by the nominee is concerned, the law is different. The money is held by the nominee as trustee of the heir, who would otherwise be entitled to succeed in the estate of the deceased. Those would be covered by the provision of the respective Succession Act. The nominee does not become the absolute owner of the property. So far as second policy is concerned, learned counsel for LIC - 2 - submits that the said policy was taken in the year 2006 and the policy holder died in less than two years thereafter. LIC has not yet repudiated the policy claim but has a right to investigate the claim as to bonafide of the policy holder. They have requested the writ petitioner to furnish details with regard to the policy holder. LIC submits that on petitioner submitting the required details as mentioned in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by them, they would get the matter enquired into and take a final decision in the matter within a month. It is for the petitioner to respond. In view of the facts noted above, nothing requires to be adjudicated as a matter of law in this writ petition any more. The writ petition with the observation aforesaid stands disposed of. singh (Navaniti Pd. Singh)