Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 201 (HP)

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. JAYA CHANDEL

2001-08-21

P.D.SHENOY, S.N.KAPOOR

body2001
ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the cheque for revival of the life insurance policy of the deceased was received on 12th July 1995 in terms of the remittance of receipt register which forms part of the record before the trial court. Apart from this entry in the remittance register, copy of the receipt register has not been produced. Remittance register just indicates receipt of the cheques by cashier and not by the receipt clerk of LIC Branch. There is no evidence to prove that the cheque was received on 12.12.1995 except the remittance register which is not relevant for the purpose of determining as to whether cheque was received or not before the death of the insured. In addition to it, the cheque was sent under certificate of posting on 27.6.1995. Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act 1938 provides that in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer. Explanation added thereto specifically . provides that "where the premium is tendered by postal money-order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be. In this case, the cheque was sent by UPC on 26.6.1995 and on that date the deceased was hale and hearty for no ailment has been alleged by the petitioner. If it is presumed that the cheque was received on 27.6.1995 in terms of the explanation, then it is further required to be seen "Whether the policy is to be revived or not?" 3. In this connection, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that revival is not a matter of right and revival could have been refused and could be granted subject to certain conditions and one of the condition is that on the date of revival, proof should have been furnished about continued insurability. Obviously, no medical certificate has been furnished. The question is whether insurability could be presumed in this matter. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that insurability could not be and should not be presumed. Obviously, no medical certificate has been furnished. The question is whether insurability could be presumed in this matter. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that insurability could not be and should not be presumed. We think this should defeat the main purpose of the policy in matters like the present one. If there is no allegation that he was suffering from any disease and as such was not insurable and the amount stood paid i.e. on 27.06.1995 and he died due to an accident on 01.07.1995, it can very well be presumed that there was continued insurability of the life of the deceased. It may further be mentioned that in view of the fact that no ailment has been alleged coupled with the fact that the cheque has been encashed, we think that this is not a fit case where we should interfere in the impugned order of the learned State Commission. With these observation, revision petition is disposed of. 4. Original UPC receipt is taken on record.