A conditional assignment to a bank, a nomination that survives, and two sons who claim the money
Mr. Suresh, aged 51, took a 15-year endowment policy on 8 January 2016 with a sum assured of ₹40,00,000 and an annual premium of ₹1,80,000, nominating his wife Kamala under Section 39. In 2021 he pledged the policy to a co-operative bank as security for a ₹15,00,000 business loan, executing an assignment in the bank's favour and giving written notice to the insurer, which registered it. The assignment deed recited that it was made 'as security for the loan and interest thereon only', and that the bank's right was limited to recovering the loan with interest from the policy money. By his death on 3 April 2024 the outstanding loan with interest was ₹11,20,000. The policy had vested bonuses of ₹6,40,000. His wife and two adult sons survive him. The bank demands the entire ₹46,40,000; the sons say a nomination is only a trustee arrangement and the money belongs to the heirs; the widow claims the whole balance.
1. Who is entitled to the policy money, and in what amounts? Support the distribution with the relevant statutory provisions.
Read the worked answer
The fund is ₹40,00,000 sum assured plus ₹6,40,000 vested bonuses, i.e. ₹46,40,000. Two statutory provisions compete: Section 38 (assignment) and Section 39 (nomination).
Under Section 38, an assignment endorsed on the policy or made by a separate instrument, with notice to the insurer, transfers the rights of the policyholder to the assignee. But an assignment can be absolute or conditional, and this deed is expressly conditional: it secures the loan and interest only. The bank is therefore entitled to ₹11,20,000, not to the whole fund.
The residue, ₹35,20,000, goes to the nominee. Since the 2015 amendment to Section 39, a nominee takes a beneficial interest in the policy money and is not a mere trustee collecting it for the heirs, unless the nomination has been cancelled or a valid assignment has disposed of the money. Here the nomination in Kamala's favour was never cancelled, and the assignment disposes of only ₹11,20,000. She takes ₹35,20,000; the sons have no independent claim while she survives. Had the death occurred under the pre-amendment law, the nominee would have held the money as a trustee for the legal heirs, which is the arrangement the sons are assuming.
2. How would the answer differ if the assignment deed had been absolute instead of conditional?
Read the worked answer
An absolute assignment transfers the entire interest in the policy to the assignee, not merely a charge over it. The bank would then stand in the shoes of the policyholder, and on maturity or death the insurer's discharge would be to the bank for the whole ₹46,40,000, the nomination notwithstanding, because the assignor had already parted with the policy before death. Whether the bank must account to the assignor's estate for any surplus over the loan would depend on the recitals of the deed: a pure sale at a stated consideration leaves no surplus to account for, while an absolute assignment expressed to be by way of security may still create a trust of the surplus in favour of the assignor.
The practical lesson is that the label 'assignment' is not enough; the operative words decide the assignee's entitlement. Insurers should read the deed before settling and should register the assignment with its precise terms, because the nominee will often produce only the nomination and claim the whole fund.
3. The insurer receives rival claims from the bank, the widow and the sons. What should it do, and what are the risks of simply paying the bank in full?
Read the worked answer
The insurer should pay the admitted amount to the bank against a full discharge, and pay the balance to the nominee, recording the basis of the split in the claim file. If the claimants will not give a joint discharge, the insurer can call for a succession certificate or a legal heir certificate, or file an interpleader suit and deposit the money with the court so that the rival claims are decided there.
Paying the bank in full would be a breach of Section 38 read with Section 39, because the bank's conditional assignment entitles it only to ₹11,20,000. The insurer would remain liable to the nominee for the ₹35,20,000 wrongly paid away, and could not recover it from the nominee. The same risk runs in reverse if the insurer pays the nominee first. Delay beyond the regulatory settlement period also attracts interest, so the insurer should not wait for the family dispute to resolve itself; it should settle the undisputed part and ask the disputants to obtain an adjudicated title for the rest.