Judgment : 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, 10 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/-. 2. 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. 3. Sri Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned advocate, contended i.hat 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 and another Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 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/-. 4. Sri G, Nataraj, learned advocate, on the other hand contended that the petitioner having paid the first premium only and having not paid the subsequent premiums due from 12/2005 upto 2011, represented on 22.02.2011, that he is willing to revive the policy and if revival is not permissible, to return the premium amount paid. 50,104/-. 4. Sri G, Nataraj, learned advocate, on the other hand contended that the petitioner having paid the first premium only and having not paid the subsequent premiums due from 12/2005 upto 2011, represented on 22.02.2011, that he is willing to revive the policy and if revival is not permissible, to return the premium amount paid. He submitted that in view of clause 4 printed under the 1conditions and privileges' on the back of the policy bond issued to the petitioner, the amount paid as first premium being not returnable, a reply dated 21.03.2011 was sent and that the respondents are justified in refusing to refund the premium amount. He submitted that the petitioner having entered into contract of insurance, is bound by the terms and conditions, which are set forth in the bond and agreement and the advance amount paid by the 'life assured' has been utilized for risk cover- for the year 2005-2006. He further submitted that the order passed in the case of Huchappa (supra), was questioned in W.A.No.254/2007 and the appeal i/vas allowed in part on 28.01.2011 and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, insofar as it related to the declaration made that forfeiture of amount in the policy which had lapsed within three vears is void and cannot be enforced and that the policy holder is entitled to the premium amount paid till the date of default was set aside. Learned counsel submitted that this writ petition being devoid of merit may be dismissed, 5. 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. 6. The said order having been questioned in W.A.No.254/2007 by the LIC, it has been held as follows: "15. 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. 6. The said order having been questioned in W.A.No.254/2007 by the LIC, it has been held as follows: "15. It is well settled that policy issued to the insurer is treated as a contract between the LIC and the policy holder and the policy holder has accepted the terms and conditions of trie policy and subscribed to the policy only with the knowledge of terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the said condition cannot be re-written. It is clear from the provisions of Clause 4 of the policy as per Annexure-A that only when the policy has lapsed within three years, the same can be revived after paying the arrears of premium and interest with the medical certificate and if the policy lapses after three years, the same would not become void and the same would continue subject to reduced sum assured as per the terms and conditions of the policy." Ultimately it was concluded as follows: "The writ appeal is allowed in part. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22682/1994 dated 14/12/2006 insofar as it relates to the declaration made by the learned Single Judge that forfeiture of the premium amount of the policy which had lapsed within three years is void and cannot be enforced and that the petitioners/policy holders are entitled to the premium amount paid till the date of default, is set aside." 7. Since the basis fcr filing of this writ petition i.e., the order passed in the case of Huchappa (supra), has been set aside, to the extent, noticed supra, the insurance policy obtained by the petitioner having lapsed for more than five years, the revival being not permissible, also, being not surrenderable, the respondents are justified in declining to repay the first premium amount of Rs. 50,104/-. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to cost.