Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is also pertinent to note that at the time of entering into the loan agreement, the Petitioner's deceased husband was covered by a group insurance policy administered by Opposite Party No.3, Max Life Insurance.In support of this assertion, she relies upon the Certificate of Insurance which, according to her, assured payment of death benefits to the nominee upon demise of the insured. The petitioner highlights that the lender, Opposite Party No.1, is listed as the Master Policy Holder, thereby enabling it to claim the insured amount--stated to be approximately Rs. 8,05,000/-

11. The petitioner also contends that the loan was covered under a group insurance policy issued by Max Life Insurance, under which Opposite Party No.1, as Master Policy Holder, was entitled to claim the insured amount of approximately Rs. 8,05,000/- upon the borrower's death. It is submitted that the lender's failure to invoke the insurance cover and its simultaneous attempt to recover the same dues through arbitration amounts to impermissible double recovery and an unconstitutional deprivation of property. The absence of any invocation notice under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, coupled with the initiation of proceedings against a deceased person, is asserted to invalidate the impugned order. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of the arbitral order, protection against coercive steps such as repossession or auction of the vehicle, and recognition that the lender had an alternative remedy through the insured Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK mechanism rather than proceeding against the estate of the deceased borrower.