D.M. EKANATHAPRASANNA Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER took Jeevan Anand policy bearing No. 622484684 on 20/22.12.2004 and paid first premium of Rs. 50,104/ -. Further premiums due from 12/2005 were not paid. On 22.02.2011, petitioner represented to the 2nd respondent, to permit the revival of the lapsed policy or return the first premium amount paid. Respondents, in their reply dated 23.02.2011, informed the petitioner that the policy cannot be revived since the policy lapsed for more than 5 years and the policy, also, cannot be surrendered since the policy has not run for three years. Petitioner got served on the respondents a legal notice dated 09.03.2011, to return the first premium amount of Rs. 50,104/ -. Respondents having repudiated the claim by a reply dated 21.03.2011, on the ground that the advance premium paid is utilized for risk cover for that one year, this writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to return the first premium amount of Rs. 50,104/ -. Statement of objections was filed by the respondents, in justification of the replies sent to the petitioner on 23.02.2011 and 21.03.2011 and seeking dismissal of this petition.

(2.) SRI Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned advocate, contended that the action of the respondents in forfeiting the first premium amount paid, by relying on condition No. 4 mentioned in the policy issued, is arbitrary and illegal. By placing reliance on the decision in the case of Huchappa, S/o. Shiv Arudrappa Akki and Sri Irappa S/o. Parappa Varur Vs. Union of India (UOI) by its secretary, Ministry of Finance, Life Insurance Corporation by its Chairman and The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, ILR (2007) KAR 602 , he contended that condition No. 4 mentioned in the policy bond having been held to be void and without any basis and a direction having been issued to return the premium amount to the discontinued policy holder, if the policy is not revived, the respondents are legally bound to return to the petitioner, the first premium amount of Rs. 50,104/ -.

(3.) THE basis to file this writ petition is the order passed in the case of Huchappa (supra). In the said case, the petitioner had sought to declare Clause -4 of the insurance policy as unconstitutional and the condition, to undergo medical test for getting revival or renewal of the policy, as null and void and to direct the Life Insurance Corporation not to forfeit the premium amount paid for the discontinued policy holder and to treat the amount as fixed deposit till the maturity period and to grant consequential reliefs. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition and directed the LIC to return the premium amount paid by the discontinued policy holder, if the policy is not revived.