Kathmandu. KATHMANDU: The Nepal Insurance Authority (NEA) has ruled that the claim payment cannot be withheld on the pretext that the death of an insured person is sub-judice in the court.
KATHMANDU: Nepal Electricity Authority (IME) has directed IME Life Insurance to pay the insurance claim amount to the spouse of the insured, Suman Kumari Chauhan.
Events of
}
The insured Aniruddha Prasad Chauhan had purchased life insurance of Rs. 1 million from IME Life Insurance on January 12, 2019. He was murdered on January 19, 2019 at the Tribhuvan Highway in Bhimphedi Rural Municipality-2 of Makwanpur.
After the death of her husband, his wife Suman Kumari Chauhan had filed a claim for the insurance claim. The insurance company had been refusing to pay the claim saying that the case regarding Chauhan’s death was pending in the Supreme Court and the post-mortem report mentioned that the cause would be revealed only after the viscera examination.
Insurer{
}
IME Life had rejected the claim payment citing that a case related to murder was pending on the basis of an application for re-examination of the case, the case related to the death of his wife Suman Kumari with the insured was pending at the Parsa District Court.
The insured’s wife Suman had registered the share on January 27, 2020 and immediately after that, on January 27, 2020, the marriage divorce was annulled.
Basis of Authority’s Decision:
}
The NRA has concluded that the claim payment cannot be stopped even though the case is pending at the Supreme Court regarding the murder of the insured who is not involved in the insured. The NRA has ruled that it is not legally permissible to stop the payment of the claim as the claimant (Suman Kumari Chauhan) has not been made a defendant in the case related to murder and has not been found involved in the murder.
Clause 127 of the Insurance Act, 2079 BS states that in case of death of the insured, the person wishing in the insurance policy should get the claim payment. The authority has rejected the claim of the insurance company that the case related to the duty of the insured is sub-judice in the Supreme Court.
This decision sets a precedent that even in the event of the murder of the insured, if it is proved that the intended person was not involved in the crime, then the insurance company cannot withhold the payment of the claim.
The case was filed from registration number 88/2080/07/24 on Kartik 24, 2080 BS.
