ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought to declare Clause 4 of the Insurance Policy as unconstitutional and ultra vires and further, to declare that the condition to undergo Medical Test for getting the revival or renewal of the policy as null and void and to issue writ of mandamus or any other direction directing the respondents 2-and 3 not to forfeit the premium amount paid by the discontinued policyholders and to treat the said amount as fixed deposit till the maturity period and further to issue writ of mandamus to direct the respondent-Corporation to deposit all such alleged forfeited amount in anyone of the scheduled bank or in the alternative, to treat the said amount as the deposit of the policyholders payable at the time of maturity of the policy along with the reasonable interest and for such other reliefs. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioners are said to be the policyholders under the respondent 2 and the policy is being issued by the respondent 3-Branch. The petitioner 1 is shown to have obtained policy on the assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- for a maturity period of 20 years. As per the terms of the policy, he has to pay Rs. 1,757/- towards half yearly premium. Similarly, petitioner 2 had obtained a policy for an assured sum of Rs. 75,000/- vide Annexures-A and B. According to the petitioners, the object under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, is for providing Regulation and Control of Business of Life Insurance. As per Section 6, the object of the Act is to secure the LIC business and to develop the same to the best advantage of the community and thereby the Corporation is issuing LIC policies providing for eventualities. It is stated that to have the benefit of LIC Policy, the condition precedent is that the policyholder has to undergo medical test to prove that he is medically fit on the date of issuance of policy. On the basis of the medical report, age, maturity period, normally the premium amount will be determined. According to the petitioners, the medical test undergone holds good till the date of maturity and in case of death before the maturity period, the policyholder will be entitled for the entire assured sum. On the basis of the medical report, age, maturity period, normally the premium amount will be determined. According to the petitioners, the medical test undergone holds good till the date of maturity and in case of death before the maturity period, the policyholder will be entitled for the entire assured sum. The main grievance of the petitioners is that if the policyholder fails to pay the premium amount, the policy would lapse. Such a policyholder has to get the policy revived on undergoing medical test and if such a policyholder does not intend to continue the policy, then such policyholder will not be entitled for the amount already paid. If such premium is paid for less than three years, the said amount will be forfeited and the same has been questioned by the petitioner as arbitrary and unreasonable and would work out hardship on the policyholders. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner on account of his personal difficulties could not pay the premium amount from September 1999 onwards, but till then he had paid the premium beginning from 1991. Thereafter, he received a notice on 23-4-1993 at Annexure-C from the respondent 3 stating that his policy has lapsed. The petitioner immediately approached the respondent 3-Branch. On his enquiry, he was informed that the policy had lapsed and in order to revive the policy, he has to pay the arrears of premium with interest. However, he was also directed to undergo medical test to prove himself that he was medically fit. When the petitioners requested for renewal of the policies, they were informed that the policies would be revived on the basis of the health condition. In that context, the petitioners have questioned the imposition of interest and the payment of the arrears of premium and also to undergo medical checkup once again contending that they are unreasonable and contrary to the object of the scheme ul1der the Act. In that context, the petitioners have questioned the imposition of interest and the payment of the arrears of premium and also to undergo medical checkup once again contending that they are unreasonable and contrary to the object of the scheme ul1der the Act. According to petitioner 1, on 27-5-1993, he wrote a letter to respondent 3 requesting him to drop the condition of undergoing medical test and to accept the arrears and interest from time to time for revival and renewal of the policy as per Annexure-D, for which, respondent 3 insisted petitioner 1 to undergo medical test and also to pay premium and interest as per Annexure-E. According to the petitioners, after issuance of the policies, the 1st petitioner-policyholder is not required to undergo medical test, when once the medical test is done at the time of issuance of policy and it is unreasonable on the part of the Corporation to insist upon the petitioner to go for medical checkup for getting the policy revived. Such a condition is challenged as opposed to public interest and public policy and runs contrary to the interest of the community. 5. According to petitioner 2, he is a Chartered Accountant and he suffered a paralytic attack and as such, he was confined to bed. He being the sole bread earner in the family, on account of his illness, there is a lapse on his part in paying the premium, as such, his wife requested the 3rd respondent to extend time to pay the premium. The 3rd respondent by his letter dated 3-9-1992 informed the second petitioner that his policy has lapse and that it has been reduced to the premium amount paid. He also informed that if the policy is continued for a period of five years then only he will be entitled for the bonus and in order to continue the policy he is required to pay the premium amount along with the interest. Further, when the second petitioner has sent his relative for· payment of the premium with interest, he was informed that the policyholder should undergo medical test and the amount was not accepted. Further, when the second petitioner has sent his relative for· payment of the premium with interest, he was informed that the policyholder should undergo medical test and the amount was not accepted. According to the second petitioner, he is holding the policy since 1988 and till 1991 he paid the premium regularly and during 1992-93 he did not pay and thereafter efforts were made to pay the arrears of premium with interest and there is no unreasonable delay in getting the policy revived. As such, for his ill health, he is entitled for the benefit of the policy and if he had paid the premium regularly. The expectancy of life was determined on the date of the policy as per the medical report, as such, it is unnecessary to undergo medical test once the policy is accepted. Further, according to him, it is not the case of taking undue advantage of the policy and the delay in getting the revival of the policy is not a deliberate act on the part of the petitioner. Further the respondent-Corporation having accepted the policy for all practical purposes on the health condition of the policyholder on the date of issuance of policy, cannot subject him to medical test once again and deny him the policy benefits and the future or subsequent expectancy of the health condition is immaterial as the same is determined as on the date of the policy. 6. According to the petitioners, both are similarly placed policyholders whose policies have lapsed and only on the ground of denial by them to undergo medical test depriving them the benefits of the policy is against the object of the Act and also opposed to the public interest and public policy. As per Clause 4 of the Policy at Annexure-B the Corporation forfeits the amount of the policyholder in cases where the policyholder fails to pay the premium upto three years and such policyholders are not entitled even to receive the premium amount already paid at the time of lapse or even on the date of maturity. As per Clause 4 of the Policy at Annexure-B the Corporation forfeits the amount of the policyholder in cases where the policyholder fails to pay the premium upto three years and such policyholders are not entitled even to receive the premium amount already paid at the time of lapse or even on the date of maturity. The same is highly unreasonable and arbitrary as it amounts to denial of the hard earned money of the policyholders who take the policy, and due to unavoidable or unforeseen circumstances when the policyholders could not continue the policy by paying the premium regularly; the Insurance Company being the sole agent running the business ought not to have indulged in forfeiting the amount of the policyholders to the detriment of their interest inasmuch as in similar circumstances other companies, the amount paid by the subscriber towards his policy will not be forfeited even though if he fails to continue the premium under the said scheme and the amount will be paid to the subscriber on the date of maturity along with the reasonable interest. The UC being the statutory organisation created under the statute ought to have protected the interest of the policyholders and ought not to have forfeited the amount of the policyholders who had taken the policies. Further, it is canvassed that the clause which enables the Insurance Corporation to forfeit the amount works out hardship to the general public policyholders and rather the said amount ought to have been treated as fixed deposit or otherwise ought to have been paid on the date of maturity. 7. Although, notices have been served on respondents and are represented by their Counsel, no counter is filed. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and also respondents. 8. 7. Although, notices have been served on respondents and are represented by their Counsel, no counter is filed. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and also respondents. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments in the petition has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India v Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited and Others!, wherein although Life Insurance Corporation was not made as a party to the said case the Apex Court has observed that the forfeiture of amount of poor persons by the Life Insurance Corporation is arbitrary and accordingly, contended that the very forfeiture clause is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and opposed to the directive principles of State policy as envisaged under the Constitution. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that when the petitioners are seeking for renewal of their policies which were lapsed and they have been told to pay the arrears of premium with interest and to undergo medical test, it was for them to undergo medical test. Under the apprehension that further undergoing medical test would disentitle them from revival of the policy, they have come up with this petition and they need not have any such apprehension and the policy will be either revived or any such order would be passed on such compliance of the direction or payment of the arrears of the premium with interest on subjecting them to further medical test and further submitted that insisting to undergo medical test due to lapse of the policy cannot be held to be unreasonable. It is further submitted that the prayer of the petitioners is too premature and cannot be accepted and challenging the validity of Condition 4 issued in the policy is not apt to the context and the same need not be considered. 10. In the light of the arguments advanced, let me consider, whether the case of the petitioners required to be considered, to issue such directions as sought for? 11. 10. In the light of the arguments advanced, let me consider, whether the case of the petitioners required to be considered, to issue such directions as sought for? 11. Of course, the respondent-authority came into existence based on the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 enacted by the Central legislation, keeping in view several objects, to protect the interest of the public at large, who undertake to insure their life by paying premium and obtaining policies to meet the contingencies and unforeseen circumstances either to have them protected from financial crisis or such contingent situations or to take care of the surviving persons. The public have been invited to take policies for which the assured sum would be paid at a maturity period on paying the premium regularly and during such period if such natural contingencies happen, then the assured sum will be paid to their family members even if it is premature and in other cases, if the policyholder survives without there being any contingencies having happened, then he would get the benefit of the maturity amount with bonus and such-Other benefits. The conditions which the policy imposes in terms of the contract should be fair and conscionable and if any such unfair condition is imposed which works out hardship, it is not only to the disadvantage of the policyholder but also detrimental to the interest of the public at large. In the instant case, notices have been served on these two petitioners who are the policyholders under the respondents intimating that their policies have lapsed for not making the payment of the premium regularly. As per Condition 4 of the policy as is noted if the premium is not paid till the completion of three years, the policy would lapse and the amount so paid by the policyholders would be rather forfeited by the Corporation. The said Condition 4 regarding non-forfeiture regulations, reads thus: "4. Non-forfeiture regulations.-If, after at least three years premia have been paid in respect of this policy any subsequent premium be not duly paid, this policy shall not be wholly void, but shall subsist as a paid up policy for a reduced sum payable on the date of maturity or at the Life Assured's prior death provided the paid-up sum assured is not less than Rs. 250/-. 250/-. The amount of paid up assurance for integral number of years' premium paid will be calculated as per Table given below. The policy so reduced shall thereafter be free from all liability for payments of within mentioned premium, but shall not be entitled to participate in future profits. The existing bonus additions, if any, will remain attached to the reduced paid up policy". The reading of the above condition provides that if the assured sum is not less than Rs. 2501- and if the policy is paid for three years by paying the premiums, the same would subsist for a reduced sum which would be payable on the date of maturity. But, however, the policyholder will not be entitled to participate in the future profits. After three years, if the premia are paid and thereafter the same have not been paid duly, in the event of death of the life assured within six months from the due date of the first unpaid premium, policy money would be paid as if the policy was in full force after deduction of the premiums unpaid with interest thereon. Further, it is provided that at least for six years the premium is paid and subsequent premiums are not paid in the event of death of the person within 12 months from the due date of the first unpaid premium the policy money would be paid as if the policy was in full force after deduction of the premium unpaid with interest thereon to the date of death on the same terms as per the revival of the policy during such period. 12. By reading this clause it is clear that a person who obtained the policy after satisfying the preliminary requirements does not pay the amount of premium regularly within three years of the policy the said amount will be forfeited and that he will not be getting any benefits of returning the amount even before or after or on the date of maturity period. 13. 13. In the instant case, for further renewal of the policy, the petitioners were insisted upon to pay the premium with interest and also to undergo medical test on the ground that the amount has not been paid before the due date and the same has been assailed by the petitioners on the ground of unreasonableness and also contending that when once the policy is taken on satisfying the health condition of the petitioners or any other person on payment of the premium regularly, there is no reason as to why further medical test has to be undergone in the event of the lapse of policy. Might be for the reason that by playing some mischief the parties would take advantage in not following the conditions imposed in paying the premium regularly, in such an event the condition imposed to undergo further medical test may not be unreasonable. Although in the beginning the petitioners have undergone medical test before issuing the policy, further, insisting them to undergo medical test once again cannot be faulted with. Further, such contingency to undergo medical test arises only when there is a lapse i.e., in not paying the premium regularly. The same may be considered as reasonable condition as long as it will not come in the way of the petitioners' right to continue their policy and also when it has not been indicated by the Insurance Company that their policy will not be revived after the further medical test. 14. The provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, makes it clear that the very implied condition imposed to forfeit the amount of the premium paid as per the policy conditions amounts to unconscionable bargain as it causes injury to the other party to the contract and also opposed to public policy as the relation between the insurer and the insured is a contract, in other words, it is a contract of insurance. Might be that, the insurer would undertake to indemnify the policyholders for the unexpected contingencies and to indemnify to pay the assured sum as per the policy. Might be that, the insurer would undertake to indemnify the policyholders for the unexpected contingencies and to indemnify to pay the assured sum as per the policy. Insofar as the persons who have entered into such contract if for one or the other reason the promisor or the insured or the policyholder could not perform his obligation by continuing to pay the premium towards the policy of insurance regularly, there would be no obligation on the part of the insured to pay him the assured sum if it is prematurely determined. Under the circumstances, when the contract is seized as a matter of fairness to avoid unjust enrichment to the advantage of the insurer and to the disadvantage of the insured withholding of such premium amount paid would be definitely against the constitutional mandate as is envisaged under Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution much less, such a contract is void as against the public policy being injurious to the person who is undertaking to participate in the contract of Insurance. However, the respondent-insurer in all such cases where the policy lapses prematurely, shall return the amount of premium received to the policyholders. 15. Articles 21, 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India envisages that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law and further the directive principles of the State policy specifically provides that the State shall strive to promote welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution provides, as a matter of obligation on the part of the State that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good and that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. A reading Article 21 and the directive principles under Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution makes it clear the condition imposed by the Insurance Company while assuring the life of the policyholders to forfeit the amount if the amount/premium is not paid for full three years, will be detrimental to the interest of the common man and it will be in clear violation of Articles 21, 38 and 39 of the Constitution. Such practice being adopted by the Corporation will be amassing the wealth of the public and thereby resulting in concentration of wealth, which does not legitimately entitle them to retain the amount/premium paid by the policyholders whose policies have lapsed when due to the financial hardship they could not get their policy revived. Thereby the very imposition of the Condition 4 at Annexures-A and B are more stringent, harsh, arbitrary and in negation of the principles canvassed in Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution thereby depriving the policyholders their right to get back the amount of premium paid by them at the instance of the State agency. The respondent-agency is not supposed to keep the said amount till the date of maturity without paying any interest, which would be opposed to the public policy and having regard to the price index of the market, it would rather work out hardship to the policyholder, even if the amount is returned with interest after such maturity period as it may be meet the prevailing market value of currency or as is paid in the regular course by the regular banking companies. In that view of the matter, the implied condition of forfeiture clause provided under Condition 4 by the respondents-authorities in the Insurance Policy of the respondents-institution is held to be void and without any basis. It is made clear in this order that henceforth the respondent-authorities shall take positive steps to call upon the policyholders to renew their policies by giving them sufficient notice and time to pay the arrears of premium and also interest thereon. In the event if the policyholders are unable to continue their policies by paying the premium, without invoking the forfeiture clause, the amount so paid by the policyholders be returned to them without waiting till expiry of the maturity period. In the event if the policyholders are unable to continue their policies by paying the premium, without invoking the forfeiture clause, the amount so paid by the policyholders be returned to them without waiting till expiry of the maturity period. Further, it is for the respondents-authorities to entertain all such claims which are not time barred and to return their premium amount paid forthwith in cases where the policies are lapsed and further renewal is not accepted and also to pay the benefits accrued till such time. 16. Insofar as the case of the petitioners is concerned, of course the condition insisted by the respondents-authorities to undergo medical test is found to be reasonable and it is for the petitioners to avail the benefit by paying the premiums and interest thereon on undergoing medical checkup. In the event if the petitioner does not like to undergo medical checkup, it is for the respondents-authorities to return the amount of premium paid, till the date of default, forthwith, without insisting on any other conditions. 17. With the above observations, petition is allowed.