JUDGMENT B. C. Varma, J. - The appellants were defendants in the lower court. The first appellant, Life Insurance Corporation of India, insured the life of late P. M. Mansukhani whose widow the respondent-plaintiff is for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- under Life Insurance Policy No. 29271374. This policy came into effect from 28.10.1976. The insured paid the annual premium of Rs. 2,200/-. While getting him insured, the appellants got the insured medically examined first on 15.5.1976. Again, on 23.9.1976, the appellants through Dr. M. P. Chandrakar, reaffirmed the health of the insured, Shri Mansukhani and it is there after that the proposal to insure him was accepted on 18.11.1976. Shri Mansukhani, however, could not pay the premium due on 28.10.1979 and, therefore, according to the appellants, the policy lapsed. It is common ground that this policy so lapsed could well have been revived under the terms of the policy. Consequently, Shri Mansukhani made an application praying for revival of that lapsed policy. Along with this application, he submitted medical report of his fitness and also paid an amount of Rs. 2,300/-, vide Ex. P. 4, dated 4.6.1980, which included the unpaid premium and interest thereon. It appears that Shri Mansukhani lost his weight and, therefore, vide letter dated 11.6.1980 (Ex. P. 5), he was asked to satisfy the appellants in that regard. Vide Ex. P. 6, dated 25.6.1980. Mansukhani informed the appellants that he voluntarily reduced his weight by diet control under medical advice. It may be mentioned that Mansukhani was aged about 40 years, and 164 c.m. tall. He reduced his weight from 75 kgs. to 68 kgs. 2. Shri Mansukhani died on 31.7.1980. By letter dated 6.8.1980, the respondent, who is widow of late Shri Mansukhani, informed the appellants of the death of Mansukhani and laid a claim for the sum for which her husband's life was insured. By communication, dated 26.10.1981, her claim was denied, but the Life Insurance Corporation only acknowledged the liability to pay paid-up value of the premium. This led the respondent to file a suit, giving rise to this appeal, laying a claim for Rs. 35,000/-, i.e., the sum for which the deceased was insured, interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum from 1.8.1980 to 8.1.1984 and Rs. 105/- as notice charges. She also claimed Rs. 4,396/- as bonus. The total claim laid was for Rs. 53,944.60. 3. 35,000/-, i.e., the sum for which the deceased was insured, interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum from 1.8.1980 to 8.1.1984 and Rs. 105/- as notice charges. She also claimed Rs. 4,396/- as bonus. The total claim laid was for Rs. 53,944.60. 3. This claim was resisted by the appellants-defendants on many counts. We need not state in detail all the defences taken before the lower court or before this court in the memorandum of appeal. The only question agitated has been that there was no revival of the policy and, therefore, the claim (except for paid up value) was not maintainable. The Trial Court negatived all the contentions raised by the appellants and returned a finding that the policy was duly revived on the deceased paying unpaid premium along with interest thereon and on submitting medical report of his fitness. The appellants are aggrieved by such judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the present appeal is against that judgment and decree. 4. The only question for our consideration in this appeal is whether on submitting an application, accompanied by unpaid premium and interest and tendering medical certificate of fitness, the lapsed policy could revive, without there being any communication of formal acceptance of the proposal to revive the policy by the insurer. The policy, in the present case, is Ex. P. 1. The relevant condition relating to revival of lapsed policies is as follows : "Revival of discontinued or lapsed policies. - When the premium is not paid within the days of grace, the policy lapses, but may be revived during the lifetime of the Life Assured, but within a period of five years from the due date of first unpaid premium and before the Due Maturity, on the following terms : (a) Within six months from the due date of the first unpaid premium without evidence of health on payment of the premiums in arrears with interest at the rate of 63 per cent for each month or portion of a month, reckoning from the due date of each premium paid late, subject to a minimum payment on this account of rupee one. If revival is completed within fourteen days from the expiry of the days of grace a simple revival charge of rupee one only will be required, no matter what the amount of the premium may be. If revival is completed within fourteen days from the expiry of the days of grace a simple revival charge of rupee one only will be required, no matter what the amount of the premium may be. (b) At any time after the first six months from the due date of the first unpaid premium but not later than the expiry of a period of five years from the due date of the first unpaid premium on production of evidence health and habits of life. Assured (including a medical report on his life from the Corporation's appointed Medical Examiner, wherever required by the Corporation, the fee for which must be paid in advance) to the satisfaction of the Corporation and of evidence to show that there has been no adverse change in personal or family history or occupation and on payment of the premium in arrears with interest thereon at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent per annum compounding half-yearly, reckoning from the due date of each premium paid late." These conditions in the insurance policy permit revival of lapsed policy but only on fulfilment of certain conditions by the insured, and during his lifetime. Revival may be something different from renewal. While revival means 'to give life again', renewal may mean a charge for some thing old by some thing new. In terms of insurance contract evidenced by insurance policies where renewal is only by mutual consent, each renewal constitutes a fresh contract. In practice, however, a fresh proposal is not used, but the original proposal is treated as if it was repeated on each renewal, and it is therefore the duty of the assured to correct any statements in the proposal which have since become in accurate. On the other hand, an insurance policy may lapse for a number of reasons, including failure to pay consideration due from the assured in the form of premium on the due date or within the period of grace allowed. There may be a revival of such lapsed policy either by agreement between the parties or by the conduct of the insurers such as to estop them from denying that there is a subsisting policy. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 25, 4th Edn. paragraphs 494 and 479). In this regard, it may be useful to note the observations made at Note 1031, appearing in Chitty on Contracts, 23rd Edn. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 25, 4th Edn. paragraphs 494 and 479). In this regard, it may be useful to note the observations made at Note 1031, appearing in Chitty on Contracts, 23rd Edn. Common Law Library, page 498. The author comments that the term 'renewal' of insurance contract is used to denote both the extension of the original period of cover by the exercise of a right given to one party (usually the assured) by the contract to extend the period of the cover without the assent of the other and the making of a new contract through the agreement of both. Life Insurance usually gives the assured the right to renew, automatically on the payment of a further premium at the end of the first period and such renewal does not constitute a new contract, but contracts which provide for the tender of the renewal premium and its acceptance by the insurer and those which provide for automatic renewal, unless one party gives notice to the other, are of the other type. It will thus be seen that in cases of renewal of insurance policies, lapsed on account of different reasons, continuance is usual at the option of the insured by performing certain acts and when he does so, the revival/continuance of the policy on its original terms is automatic. Such revival of the original policy of the cover can be initiated only for reasons, such as, to make full disclosures, etc. which may initiate the original contract. It is only when the renewal depends upon the agreement of both the parties and if results in a new contract that a duty is cast upon the insured to make full disclosure at the time of the renewal. It can, therefore, be safely inferred that unless there is something in the clause providing for revival of a policy that the policy can well be revived at the instance of the assured by satisfying all the conditions mentioned in the contract for revival of the lapsed policy. As soon as such terms are complied with by the assured, the revival of the policy shall be automatic. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hindusthan Ideal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. B. Jayalakshmamma ( AIR 1959 AP 562 ), seems to be sharing the view which we have taken. As soon as such terms are complied with by the assured, the revival of the policy shall be automatic. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hindusthan Ideal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. B. Jayalakshmamma ( AIR 1959 AP 562 ), seems to be sharing the view which we have taken. It is observed there that renewal of a lapsed policy followed as a matter of course on fulfilment of conditions mentioned in the policy. The insurer cannot add further terms and conditions if and when the revival is desired, so as to affect the terms of the original agreement. The Court expressly negatived the contention that until acceptance of the renewal application and issue of memorandum stating that the policy has been revived, the policy remains lapsed. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, relied upon a later decision of a Single Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ahmedunnisa Begum v. L.I.C. of India ( AIR 1981 AP 50 ). The learned Single Judge has distinguished the earlier Division Bench decision of that court in Hindusthan Ideal Insurance Co.'s case (supra), on the ground that in the former case the insurance policy did not contain any stipulation that the question of revival can be considered only during the lifetime of the assured, as the condition in the insurance policy in that case. The conclusion reached was that the insurance policy was not revived during the lifetime of the assured and, therefore, it was held that there was no revival of the policy. It was expressly observed that since the assured died before the actual revival of the policy, there could be no revival and the claim for the entire amount due under the policy could not be decreed. We do not see that the learned single Judge in Ahmedunnisa Begum's case (supra) had laid down anything contrary to the decision of the Division Bench in Hindusthan Ideal Insurance Co.'s case (supra). If, for any reason, it can be said that the decision of the learned single Judge of that court runs counter to its earlier Division Bench decision, we would like to concur with the view taken by the Division Bench, as shown by us above. Shri Dhande, learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in L.I.C. of India v. R. Vasireddy ( AIR 1984 SC 1014 ). Shri Dhande, learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in L.I.C. of India v. R. Vasireddy ( AIR 1984 SC 1014 ). Suffice it to say that the Supreme Court there was concerned with the question of coming into force of the completed original contract. It was in that context that it was said that the silence of receipt and retention of premium cannot be construed as acceptance of the proposal, which could be completed only when the proposal was communicated to the offeror. The Supreme Court was not concerned with revival of the policy on fulfilment of the conditions by the assured. 5. We have earlier quoted the conditions on which a lapsed policy can be revived at the option of the assured. We find from the record and it will also appear from the narration of the facts made by us above, that the assured complied with all the conditions mentioned therein. The assured deposited the unpaid premium during the stipulated time together with interest thereon. He produced the evidence of health. He was examined by the Doctor appointed by the L.I.C. and submitted his report as well. The Corporation authorities remained absolutely silent over the matter and did not communicate to the assured that the report did not satisfy the Corporation authorities. We infer from the conduct of the Corporation authorities that the medical report obtained by them through their Doctor was satisfactory. We, therefore, agree with the conclusion reached by the lower court that the deceased, during his lifetime did all that he was required to do under the terms of the policy for its revival. The authorities got the deceased examined by their medical expert and were satisfied as to his health. The policy, therefore, was revived during the lifetime of the assured, late Shri Mansukhani. Consequently, the respondent-plaintiff has rightly been held entitled to the entire sum under that policy. 6. No other point was urged. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee as per schedule. Appeal dismissed.