Who is your beneficiary?

As far as insurer’s are concerned, once the death benefit and all proceeds of a life insurance policy is paid to the nominee, the responsibility of the insurer is done.

Ex-lover named as sole beneficiary

PENANG: A doctor who is being sued for harassing his ex-lover and her family had named the woman as sole beneficiary of his life insurance policy valued at RM80,000, a High Court here heard.

Dr Ganesan: Told the insurance company that Puvaneswarry was his wife.

Counsel R.S.N. Rayer said yesterday that K. Puvaneswarry, 22, wanted to extort money from his client Dr P. Ganesan, 36, and had demanded that he nominate her as the sole beneficiary in the policy taken out on Jan 4.

He said the plaintiffs – Puvaneswarry, her parents K. Krishnasamy and S. Sarasvathy, and siblings Thiagaraj, Dhanalakshmi, Shanti and Selvaalogaraj – had not made a full and fair disclosure of facts to the court and had blatantly lied in their affidavits.

He also said they filed the suit merely to intimidate Dr Ganesan and to make him withdraw a RM25,000 claim he had filed against Puvaneswarry in a magistrate’s court.

Rayer said the plaintiffs claimed that the couple’s affair ended in April last year, but the affair actually continued after that.

“Puvaneswarry had on one instance admitted going to a hotel in Alor Star with Dr Ganesan on Jan 19,” he said.

Rayer was submitting in the hearing of an application filed by the plaintiffs for an interlocutory injunction to restrain Dr Ganesan from trespassing into their home, and from contacting them, threatening them, sending them gifts, and damaging their property, pending the disposal of their suit.

In their statement of claim, they said Dr Ganesan made harassing calls to Puvaneswarry after she ended their affair, and sent vulgar SMSes to her family members, threatened and assaulted them, defaced and damaged Krishnasamy’s car and another daughter’s car.

Puvaneswarry: Allegedly wanted to extort money from Dr Ganesan.

They claimed Dr Ganesan sent Puvaneswarry a bouquet containing two live snakes on 9.45pm on Feb 13, and placed a plastic package containing a dead human foetus on one of her sister’s cars around 5.04am on March 25.

In his statement of defence, Dr Ganesan said Puvaneswarry refused to repay a RM25,000 friendly loan that he gave her to finance her off-campus studies.

He later filed a counterclaim for RM10mil against the plaintiffs for defamation, claiming that they filed the writ because he had refused to marry Puvaneswarry.

Plaintiffs’ counsel Datuk K. Kumaraendran submitted yesterday that Dr Ganesan had misled the insurance company by stating that Puvaneswarry was his wife, which was a blatant lie.

He said this clearly showed that Dr Ganesan was prepared to give false information to the insurance company.

He also said Dr Ganesan had made an illogical and unreasonable statement in his affidavit when he said he was persuaded to nominate Puvaneswarry as the beneficiary of the insurance policy because she threatened to inform his wife that she was four months’ pregnant with his child.

Judicial Commissioner Ghazali Cha will deliver his decision on the application on Sept 6.

One Response to “Who is your beneficiary?”
  1. i can say that wht all happened was really bad for both of them .
    no worries . !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: