Judgement JUDGEMENT :- Mangilal Agarwalla insured his own life in the sum of Rupees 5,000/- with effect from 28-8-1955 with the National Insurance Company Ltd., taken over by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, (hereinafter called the Corporation) in 1956. It was an endowment policy and the yearly premium of Rs. 254.69 was payable on 28th of August each year. The premium due in August, 1964, was deposited by the insured at Nowgong with the authorised banker of the Corporation on 12-12-64. Mangilal having not received any acknowledgment of the premium deposited until January, 1965, he addressed a letter (copy Ext. 9) to the Corporation enquiring if it had received the premium. The Corporation wrote back to Mangilal, vide copy Ext. 10, intimating that even if no receipt had been issued to him he should consider that letter itself as acknowledgment of the amount deposited, though it was also mentioned in the letter that the United Bank of India Ltd., Nowgong, with which Mangilal had deposited the premium, had not transferred to the Corporation the amount in question and that necessary adjustment against the amount due in August, 1964, would be made in time. There was probably no further exchange of communication between the insured and the Corporation until 21st of July, 1965, when the former died. The policy had been assigned by Mangilal in favour of his son Omprakash. When Omprakash made a demand on the Corporation for payment of the money under the policy to him in his capacity as nominee, the Claims Departments of the Corporation apprised Omprakash that the total amount due to him under the policy was Rs. 2563/-, the policy having taken the form of a paid-up policy for the reason of non-payment of the premium due in August, 1964. Omprakash having failed to convince the Corporation that he was entitled to the benefit of the entire insured amount plus profits earned, he filed a suit in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Newgong, on 16-7-68 claiming a decree for Rs. 5,500/-. 2. The suit was resisted by the Corporation which insisted, as stated above, that the insurance policy having become a paid-up policy due to non-deposit of premium due in August, 1964, the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree exceeding the paid-up value of the policy which was Rs. 2,563/-. 3. 5,500/-. 2. The suit was resisted by the Corporation which insisted, as stated above, that the insurance policy having become a paid-up policy due to non-deposit of premium due in August, 1964, the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree exceeding the paid-up value of the policy which was Rs. 2,563/-. 3. The trial Court agreed with the contention of the Corporation and so decreed the suit with costs for the sum of Rs. 2,563/- only, Omprakash challenged that decree in an appeal filed in the Court of the District Judge reiterating his right to the full amount of Rs. 5,500/-. The Corporation filed cross-objections assailing the correctness of the decree for costs of the suit on the footing that it having offered Rupees 2,563/- to the plaintiff before he filed the suit and he having failed to receive that money and the Court having upheld the Corporations contention, the plaintiff was not entitled to costs of the suit. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff with costs and allowed the cross-objections of the Corporation holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the costs of the suit. After rejection of his appeal by the District Judge, Omprakash filed the instant second appeal. 4. The short question for decision is whether or not the policy bad become paid-up policy only for the reason that the premium due on 28th August, 1964, had been paid on 12-12-1964. Obviously the premium was paid belatedly. In terms of the agreement between the deceased Mangilal and the Insurance Company the former could avail of a period of grace of one month for paying the annual premium. Therefore, the premium due on 28-8-1964 could be paid latest on 28-9-1964 without any penal consequences. Shri B.M. Goswami representing the appellant brought to the Courts notice certain policy decisions of the Corporation which govern the revival of lapsed policies. In the first instance he placed reliance on para 2, Chapter I, Policy-holders Servicing Department, Volume I, Part 4, issued by the Corporation. This para 2 bears the heading "Ordinary Revival". Shri B.M. Goswami representing the appellant brought to the Courts notice certain policy decisions of the Corporation which govern the revival of lapsed policies. In the first instance he placed reliance on para 2, Chapter I, Policy-holders Servicing Department, Volume I, Part 4, issued by the Corporation. This para 2 bears the heading "Ordinary Revival". It is stated therein inter alia that "If the premium under a policy is not paid within the days of grace or even within a period of one month from the expiry of the days of grace, but is paid within six months of the due date of the first unpaid premium, no evidence of good health is necessary but interest at the rate of ½ per cent, for each month or portion of a month reckoning from the due date of each premium paid late subject to a minimum on this account of 50 nP. is necessary for revival of the policy". It is also mentioned in the same para that revival in the manner just mentioned may be allowed "even if the policy has specifically been endorsed with regard to being paid-up, provided the revival is effected within six months of the due date of the first unpaid premium". Shri Goswami also placed reliance on para 2(a) of letter dated 1st March, 1960, issued by the Corporation to its various functionaries including its Zonal Offices. That para reads as under : "For policies subject to Automatic Paid-up Clause, deposits would be adjusted and premium receipts issued if the amount of premium in full is remitted within 6 months from the due date of the first unpaid premium. Interest for late payment, if less than Rs, 5/- and if not paid, shall be treated as a loan (called X charge) under the policy. Premium receipt or receipts will be issued in such cases after affixing on each such receipt and its counterpart a rubber stamp of the design specified in paragraph 7(ii) of oar circular on Adjustment of outstanding Deposits Ref: Integration 12 dated 16th January, 1959". 5. On the authority of the Corporations two policy decisions reproduced above, Shri Goswami invoked the provisions of Section 50 of the Insurance Act 1938 of which the marginal heading reads : "Notice of options available to the assured on the lapsing of a policys. 5. On the authority of the Corporations two policy decisions reproduced above, Shri Goswami invoked the provisions of Section 50 of the Insurance Act 1938 of which the marginal heading reads : "Notice of options available to the assured on the lapsing of a policys. The section enacts that an insurer shall, before the expiry of three months from the date on which the premiums in respect of a policy of life insurance were payable but not paid, give notice to the policy-holder informing him of the options available to him unless these are set forth in policy. Shri Goswami canvassed that the two options reproduced above being available to Mangilal and the same being not set forth in the policy of the insurance issued to him, the Corporation was bound in terms of Section 50 of the Act to communicate the same to Mangilal, and that having not been done the policy cannot be said to have become a paid-up policy. Shri P. Choudhury urged, on the other hand, on behalf of the Corporation that the two options are actually set out in the insurance policy and as such it was not necessary for the Corporation to communicate the same to the insured in terms of Section 50. Shri Choudhury placed reliance in support of this submission on condition No. 8 printed on the insurance policy itself. According to that condition if the premium is not paid within the period of grace the payment can be made within six months from the due date if it is accompanied with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum without any evidence of good health. 6. The rival contentions canvassed by the parties learned Counsel throw up the question whether condition No. 8 forming pan of the insurance policy corresponds with the two options available to the insured in terms of para 2, Chapter I, of Policy-holders Servicing Department and para 2(a) of the Corporations letter dated 1st March, 1960. After comparing these two options with the phraseology of condition No. 8 I feel satisfied that the two sets of options do not correspond with each other, and that the two options mentioned in the Policyholders Servicing Department and Corporations letter arc more favourable to the insured compared to what is contained in condition No. 8. After comparing these two options with the phraseology of condition No. 8 I feel satisfied that the two sets of options do not correspond with each other, and that the two options mentioned in the Policyholders Servicing Department and Corporations letter arc more favourable to the insured compared to what is contained in condition No. 8. The first difference between the two sets of options is that condition No. 8 insist that the interest at six per cent per annum must accompany the remittance of the over-due premium, whereas para 2 of Policyholders Servicing Department requires that the interest at the rate of ½ per cent for each month or a portion of a month may be paid within a period of six months from the due date of the first unpaid premium. This distinction is of far reaching importance to the policy-holders inasmuch as an ignorant policy holder may feel convinced even on deposit of a premium belatedly that the policy is still alive, but the concession given to him by para 2 of the Policyholders Servicing Department may be availed of by him within a period of six months if he is apprised by the Corporation that such concession can be availed of by him to avoid the policy falling in the category of paid-up policy, I may recall that when Mangilal did not get any information from the Corporation respecting the deposit made by him on 12-12-1964, he wrote a letter to the Corporation in January, 1965, enquiring if the premium had been received by it. The Corporation wrote back telling Mangilal that though the United Bank of India had not transferred the deposit to it, he (Mangilal) may consider that letter itself as a letter of acknowledgment of deposit of the premium. After getting this letter Mangilal could legitimately labour under the feeling that the policy bad not been treated by the Company as a paid-up policy. If in that letter the Company bad communicated to him that as he had not deposited the premium in time it would be better for him to pay interest for four months, representing the period of delay, in all probability Mangilal would have paid the interest to save the policy falling in the category of paid up policy. 7. If in that letter the Company bad communicated to him that as he had not deposited the premium in time it would be better for him to pay interest for four months, representing the period of delay, in all probability Mangilal would have paid the interest to save the policy falling in the category of paid up policy. 7. Another difference between the two sets of options is that condition No. 8 of the policy does not talk of interest of less than Rs. 5/- being treated as loan under the policy as is mentioned in Corporations letter dated 1st March, 1960. If the Corporation had communicated this option to Mangilal when he had not paid the premium within three months of 28-8-1964, his eyes would have been opened and he would have taken necessary steps to deposit the premium and to pay the interest. The two Courts below dented Omprakash, the nominee of the policy, the benefit of para 2(a) of Corporations letter dated 1st March, 1960, on the footing that the total interest works out to Rs. 5.09 while in terms of para 2(a) the interest could be treated as a loan against the policy if it was less than Rs. 5/-. Technically speaking, no fault can be found with the reasoning adopted by the two Courts. However, that does not decide the crucial point raised by Shri Goswami, it being that the Corporation was bound to communicate to the insured, in terms of die Section 30 of the Insurance Act, all the options which were open to him when the insured failed to pay the premium, and such a communication had to be addressed by the Corporation before the expiry of three months from 28-8-1964. The Corporation having failed to carry out the statutory obligation mentioned in Section 50 of the Act, it cannot be heard to say that the policy had become paid-up because the premium had been paid late and the interest which had accrued due on fee premium between its due date and the date of actual payment worked out to Rs. 5.09 and so could not be treated as a loan against the policy. 8. 5.09 and so could not be treated as a loan against the policy. 8. Shri P. Choudhury urged, as an alternative argument, that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act cannot visit the Corporation with penal consequences, and he actually went to the extent of contending that the provisions of Section 50 are not obligatory in the sense canvassed by Shri Goswami. Shri Choudhury, however, candidly conceded that he had not been able to lay hand on any reported decision to support his submission. In my opinion the provisions in question are in the nature of an addendum statutorily appended to the insurance agreement concluded between the parties. A beneficent measure like the Insurance Act must interpreted in a manner more beneficial to the assured. On principle as also on the wording of the section I see no force in the contention that the provisions of the section are not of obligatory nature, or that those provisions can be violated with impunity. The Corporation having failed to discharge its statutory obligation, it cannot claim tie pound of flesh on literal interpretation of the conditions of the policy in complete oblivion of the two policy decisions adopted by it, one incorporated in para 2 of Policy-holders Servicing Department and the other in para 2 of its letter dated 1st March, 1960. I have, therefore, no misgivings that the two Courts below have been highly technical in then approach to the matter which in the context of the proved circumstances deserved more bolder consideration. The letters exchanged between the insured and the Corporation before the formers death on 21st of July, 1965, clearly lay the blame at the door of the Corporation. By the date the Corporation wrote the letter Ext 10, more than three months had run out from the due date 28-8-1964 and so the Corporation may well have at least at that late stage apprised Mangilal that he having deposited the premium late it would be better if he sent a small sum representing the interest, rather than tell him that he should consider the letter itself as a receipt acknowledging the payment of the premium. I may usefully refer here to Para 1(i) of Policyholders Servicing Department which provides that "If the conditions of revival of lapsed policies in any unit are onerous compared to those stated in the corporations prospectus, the conditions and privileges mentioned In the corporations prospectus should be applied." Here was an occasion for the Corporation to translate its written professions into practical sets but it miserably failed. 9. In view of the conclusions reached above, I hold that the plaintiff is clearly entitled to a decree for the entire sum of Rs. 5,500/-. Therefore, on allowing this appeal and setting aside the decrees of the two Courts below I award bun a decree for Rs. 5,500/- (Rupees five thousand and five hundred), together with costs of all the three Courts, against the defendants of the suit. Appeal allowed.