JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who is the complainant in complaint No.10/KCH/L1/21-001-723/2009-10 on the files of Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi, has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P8 order dated 24.05.2010 passed by the Ombudsman by which it was allowed partly directing the Life Insurance Corporation of India, respondent No.1, to refund the entire amount collected in excess of the premium of Rs.1,26.209/-per annum, since 2005 and further to comply with the award within 15 days of receipt of the acceptance letter and intimate compliance to the Ombudsman. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is the holder of a Life Insurance Policy bearing No. 391097063 with a maturity value of Rs.20,00,000/-. The above policy commenced on 28.01.2001 and will mature only on 28.01.2030 though the last payment date is 28.01.2029. The yearly premium in respect of the above policy was Rs.87,665/-falling due on the 28th January of every year, as is evident from Exhibit P1 policy certificate. Petitioner was paying the premium regularly up to the year 2004. Exhibit P1 policy became lapsed due to the non-payment of the premium due on 28.01.2005. Petitioner submitted a revival application to revive the policy in the year 2007. The Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Vaikom Branch, respondent No.4, revived the above policy on 19.12.2007 with effect from 28.01.2005 re-fixing the yearly premium at the rate of Rs.1,21,865/-, as is evident from Exhibit P2. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner has paid the amount claimed by the Life Insurance Corporation in terms of the revival of the policy and has paid the premium of the year 2008 also at the revised rate. Thereafter, in the second half of the year 2009, the petitioner was directed to pay a further sum of Rs.4,344/-for each year from January, 2005 onwards with interest and the late fee stating that there was calculation mistake in the premium and the petitioner is bound to pay the arrears due to the LIC. 4. In the meanwhile, the policy again lapsed due to the nonpayment of the premium due in January, 2009. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,26,740/-towards the revival of the policy. According to the petitioner, he remitted the said amount on 11.07.2009 under protest. 4. In the meanwhile, the policy again lapsed due to the nonpayment of the premium due in January, 2009. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,26,740/-towards the revival of the policy. According to the petitioner, he remitted the said amount on 11.07.2009 under protest. Thereafter, petitioner was served with Exhibit P3 notice dated 26.08.2009 along with Exhibit P4 revival of the quotation dated 27.08.2010 intimating that Rs.1,26,740/-remitted by him on 11.07.2009 has been kept in deposit and required him to pay an amount of Rs.22,616/-more before 11.09.2009 to revive the policy. 5. In Exhibit P3, it is stated that the LIC had collected the revival amount by considering the yearly premium at Rs.1,21,865/-and the audit team, during audit, pointed out that the correct premium on account of charging health extra premium comes to Rs.126209/-and therefore, the petitioner has to remit Rs.13032/-towards difference in 3 yearly premium, late fee of Rs.1536/-and also an amount of Rs.4436/-as difference in premium due on January, 2008. According to the petitioner, it is only from Exhibit P3 petition, he came to know for the first time that he was charged with health extra premium, which is not a condition stated in Exhibit P1 policy, and enhancing his premium to Rs.1,21,685/-was without any reasonable basis. 6. However, it is submitted that the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.22,766/-on 23.12.2009 under protest to revive his policy, as is evident from Exhibit P5 letter dated 23.12.2009. It is also submitted that immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted a complaint dated 01.01.2010 before the Marketing Manager of the LIC, Divisional Office, Kottayam, respondent No.3, pointing out that there is no provision for demanding the enhanced premium from the insurer; that during the period from 28.01.2005 to 19.12.2007 the policy was on a lapsed condition; that no risk was covered during that period and without covering any risk, extra premium is not liable to be collected; and that the extra premium and interest collected for the above period is without any authority and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the extra premium along with other charges, evident from Exhibit P6 letter dated 01.01.2010. 7. 7. But, no action was taken to ventilate the grievance of the petitioner and it was aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Life Insurance Corporation that the petitioner has filed the complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman, respondent No.5, under Rule 12(1) (c) r/w Rule 13 of the Redressal of Public Grievance Rules, 1998. It seems, a letter was issued to the petitioner by the Life Insurance Corporation explaining the facts and circumstances and justifying the action of reviving the installment premium of the policy. 8. Anyhow, the Life Insurance Corporation contested the proceedings before the Ombudsman. Even though no objection was filed, the Insurance Ombudsman, after taking into account the policy conditions and the nature of the contract entered into by and between the parties, has considered the issue as follows: 9. The Point: The policy commenced on 28.01.2001 at an annual premium of Rs.87,665/-. In 2007, the lapsed policy was revived w.e.f the date of lapsation viz., 28.01.2005. Then the premium was fixed at Rs.1,21,865/-. After revival, another premium due on 28.01.2008 also was paid at the revised rate. In January 2009, pursuant to audit report, it, was enhanced to Rs.1,26,209/- Due to delayed payments, certain sums also were realized. Now the complainant's case is that he was only liable to pay premium originally fixed at Rs.87,665/-, but, he was compelled to pay at Rs.1,21,865/-on revival and he is entitled to refund of the same. The subsequent enhancement to Rs.1,26,209/-is faulty and after that, he paid it only under protest. He is entitled to get back the excess amount paid. 10. The first contention is that the insurer is not entitled to enhance the premium on revival. The Advocate relied on Clause 3 of the policy conditions and argued that there is no provision in the policy to enhance the premium on revival. Clause 3 reads, "if the policy has lapsed, it may be revived during the life time of the life assured, but within a period of 5 years from the date of the first unpaid premium and before the date of maturity, on submission of proof of continued insurabilily to the satisfaction of the Corporation and the payment of all the arrears of premium together with interest at such rate as may be prevailing at the time of payment compounding half yearly. The Corporation reserves the right to accept or decline the revival of discontinued policy. The Corporation reserves the right to accept or decline the revival of discontinued policy. The revival of a discontinued policy stall take effect only after the same is approved by the Corporation and is specifically communicated to the life assured". On the basis of that, it is argued that the insurer is only entitled to realize the interest on the premium at the prevailing rate compounding half yearly and no other amount is liable to be realized: But it is relevant to note that the revival mentioned is on submission of proof of continued insurability to the satisfaction of the Corporation. Hence if the insurability has changed, that can be corrected only by premium. In the instant case, it is admitted that medical reports were produced. The complainant has argued that no reason was stated for enhancing the premium and hence the enhanced amount has to be refunded. The insurer has stated that underwriting is not based on diagnosis but prognosis and underwriting aspects are not disclosed to parties. That is why they have not disclosed the reason. But it is relevant to note that the insurer has the right to deny revival though revival is permissible under Clause 3 of the policy conditions. They themselves must be satisfied with the insurability in order to revive the policy. That is not an objective but subjective decision is evident. At any rate, on revival, he paid the premium fixed without any protest and again paid the premium fell due on 28.01.2008. For one year, he did not complain of excess realization of the premium. He made protest only on asking to pay further amount. As to the enhancement of the premium to Rs.1,21,865/-, there is acquiescence and the complaint as to that before this authority is barred by limitation too. Hence no further scrutiny on that aspect is required. At any rate, the insurer is entitled to claim the enhanced premium at the time of revival in accordance with the variance in the insurability of the person concerned. 11. The next question to be considered is whether further demand for premium is proper. The insurer has produced the decision for revival. It is dated 11.07.2007. It was issued from Central Underwriting Section, Mumbai. In it, the decision was taken to revive the policy with Class V extra pro-rata. Only on the basis of that decision, revival was made. 11. The next question to be considered is whether further demand for premium is proper. The insurer has produced the decision for revival. It is dated 11.07.2007. It was issued from Central Underwriting Section, Mumbai. In it, the decision was taken to revive the policy with Class V extra pro-rata. Only on the basis of that decision, revival was made. While fixing the premium for Class V extra, the amount in that account was assessed at Rs.34,200/ treating the extra premium at Rs.17.10 per 1000 sum assured. For that, they applied the health extra for person aged 50. But at the time of revival, he was aged 53. Hence for policy period for 25 years term, at age 53, health extra should have been calculated @ Rs.19.272 per 1000 sum assured. On calculating at that rate, the amount payable as Class V extra would be Rs.38,544/-. Hence there was a deficit in the amount arrived at. That was on account of a mistake is evident. To err is human and mistake can be rectified at any time. Such a rectification alone has been made. Hence I find that the premium to be paid is Rs.1,26,209/-. 12. But it looks that the complainant happened to make further amounts. Of course, it is on account of delay etc. It looks that by letter dated 26.08.2009, in addition to the 3 years premium difference of Rs.13,032/-for the years 2005 to 2007, Rs.1,536/-was claimed as late fee. In that letter, it is also stated that he was informed that he was liable to pay that amount before 11.09.2009 and also through the personal visit of their Sr. Branch Manager on 25.07.2009. It i s further stated that the amount he paid on 11.07.2009 [under protest] was kept in deposit for want of interest of Rs.3,704/-. But from the letter it is clear that the dispute as to the premium was there from 15.12.2008 and he was liable to make such excess payment only on 15.12.2008. He was not convinced how this higher amount was arrived at. In this connection, it is relevant to note that in none of the correspondence made to the complainant, he was explained how the figure was arrived at. Even in the letter dated 26.08.2009, it is not mentioned that Class V extra was charged for revival. He was not convinced how this higher amount was arrived at. In this connection, it is relevant to note that in none of the correspondence made to the complainant, he was explained how the figure was arrived at. Even in the letter dated 26.08.2009, it is not mentioned that Class V extra was charged for revival. Of course, the underwriting materials will be only to the exclusive knowledge and information of the insurer and it will not be divulged. But the insured, being a consumer, is entitled to know why that amount was imposed and how that amount was arrived at. In none of the letters it is explained as to how the mistake had crept in. They simply stated that during audit, it was found in deficit. In the absence of such particulars, it is to be taken that they accepted the offer to revive the policy for that sum on receiving that sum. In order to show it as mistake, the particulars must be divulged. All those delay occurred on account of the fault of the employee of the insurer. The employees of the insurer should have assessed the amounts due from him as premium for revival strictly according to the rules. If any fault was committed by him and any loss was caused, it must be realized from the incumbent. But instead of that, the insurer has not only failed to explain the matters to him but also asked to pay late fee for the delay occurred on such mistake. Hence that step is not proper. Of course, it looks that the premium payable on 28.01.2009 was not paid. But the insured's specific statement is that the insurer was refusing to accept the premium and finally he paid the amount demanded, under protest, and then again, they demanded interest. That statement looks to be correct. Otherwise, he would not have paid the amount demanded by the insurer. In such a situation, it is not at all proper to permit the insurer to realise either the late fee or interest on the amount payable. Of course, had it been explained to him as to how the figure was arrived at, instead of saying that the auditors have reported that there is deficit, the contention would have been appreciated. In such a situation, it is not at all proper to permit the insurer to realise either the late fee or interest on the amount payable. Of course, had it been explained to him as to how the figure was arrived at, instead of saying that the auditors have reported that there is deficit, the contention would have been appreciated. A consumer is entitled to be educated by the service provider, but for their default, the consumer is asked to pay penalty. Hence it is only proper to direct refund of the entire amount collected in excess of premium at Rs.1,26,209/-p.a. since 2005. An award is liable to be passed for the same. 13. In the result, an award is passed directing the insurer to refund the amount collected from the insured in excess or Rs.1,26,209/-p.a since 2005 together with interest @ 8% p.a. since the date of realization. 14. In order to implement the award the complainant shall furnish to insurer a letter of acceptance of the award in full and final settlement of the claim as prescribed in Rule 16(5) of RPG Rules within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the award, and the insurer shall comply with the award within 15 days of receipt of the acceptance letter and intimate compliance to the Ombudsman.” It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of Exhibit P8 order passed by the Ombudsman, the writ petition is filed. 9. A counter affidavit is filed by the Life Insurance Corporation and its officials basically admitting the factual contentions raised by the petitioner, however, justifying its action of charging extra premium to revive the policy. According to the Life Insurance Corporation, extra premium was calculated on the basis of the age of the life assured as on the date of lapse i.e., 28.01.2005 i.e., 50 years; the premium was enhanced after obtaining the consent of the policy holder for charging class V health extra at the rate of Rs.17.10 per 1000 Sum Assured per annum. According to the Life Insurance Corporation, extra premium was calculated on the basis of the age of the life assured as on the date of lapse i.e., 28.01.2005 i.e., 50 years; the premium was enhanced after obtaining the consent of the policy holder for charging class V health extra at the rate of Rs.17.10 per 1000 Sum Assured per annum. Subsequently, in the year 2009, the audit team of the Corporation pointed out that the extra premium worked out was wrong and the extra premium had to be charged on the basis of the age of the life assured as on the date of revival i.e., 53 years and not on the basis of the age of the petitioner as on the date of lapse. 10. Clause V extra premium for the age of 53 years is Rs.19.272 per 1000 Sum Assured, working out to Rs.38,544/-and therefore, the revised yearly premium works out to Rs.1,26,209/-per annum. Therefore, according to the Life Insurance Corporation, there was a difference of Rs.4344/-in the premium to be remitted under the policy due to revision in the health extra premium. 11. It is also pointed out that the petitioner after paying the revised premium under protest approached the Insurance Ombudsman and filed the complaint. According to the Life Insurance Corporation, the petitioner, being a defaulter, has no manner of right to question the right of enhanced premium and as a token of acceptance, he has remitted the amount. It is further submitted that merely because he has used the word ‘under protest and without prejudice’, it cannot be presumed that he has a right to challenge the same at a later stage for some untenable reasons. 12. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the Life Insurance Corporation is that the rate of premium to be paid is re-fixed in accordance with the prescribed regulations/rules framed thereunder, which cannot be altered by a policyholder. It is further submitted that in a life insurance contract, the contract is for the term fixed at the commencement of the policy and the coverage is offered during the term of the contract. 13. It is further submitted that in a life insurance contract, the contract is for the term fixed at the commencement of the policy and the coverage is offered during the term of the contract. 13. Relying upon clause 3 of Exhibit P1 policy under the head ‘conditions and privileges’, it is submitted that if the insurability has changed, it can be corrected only by way of charging appropriate extra premium, and the factors affecting the continued insurability of the person whose policy is revived is assessed at the time of revival, and on the basis of assessment of risk at the time of revival, the Life Insurance Corporation shall continue acceptance of the risk at the pre-existing terms/decline/accept with extra premium. 14. It is further submitted that as per clause 3 of Exhibit P1 policy, the respondent reserves the right to accept or decline the revival of the discontinued policy. Therefore, it is contended that the Life Insurance Corporation accepted the revival of the policy with extra premium for covering the extra risk of the petitioner, and charging extra premium is an inherent principle of insurance for covering extra risk. 15. A reply affidavit is filed reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and disputing the contentions advanced in the counter affidavit. 16. I have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan, assisted by Adv. Fathima Mohan for the petitioner and Sri. P.B. Sahasranaman for the Life Insurance Corporation, and perused the pleadings and material on record. 17. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner is that the Insurance Ombudsman erred in holding that the insurer is entitled to claim the enhanced premium at the time of revival in accordance with the variance in the insurability of the person concerned. It is further submitted that the revival of the discontinued policy is governed by clause 3 of Exhibit P1 policy, wherein it is clearly specified that the Corporation may revive the policy within a period of five years from the date of the first unpaid premium and before the date of maturity, on submission of proof of continued insurability to the satisfaction of the Corporation and the payment of all the arrears of premium together with interest at such rate as may be prevailing at the time of payment compounding half-yearly. 18. 18. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, there is no power vested with the Corporation to claim the enhanced premium at the time of revival in accordance with variance in the insurability of the person concerned. It is also contended that there is no other provision either in the Insurance Act or the rules framed thereunder empowering the Corporation—insurer to claim the enhanced premium at the time of revival depending upon variance in the insurability of the person concerned. Therefore, it is contended that the findings of the Insurance Ombudsman that the insurer is entitled to claim the enhanced premium is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 19. It is also the contention of the petitioner that Exhibit P1 insurance policy is in the nature of a contract between the insurer and the insured and therefore, Exhibit P1 policy cannot be amended, modified or outstepped by the insurer by superimposing the conditions which are not contained in Exhibit P1 policy. Other contentions are also raised in accordance with the pleadings put forth by the petitioner. 20. Learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation has advanced arguments on the basis of the counter affidavit filed before this Court and deliberated above. The sole question to be considered is whether any manner of interference is required to Exhibit P8 order passed by the Ombudsman. 21. The contentions advanced by the rival parties are based on clause 3 of Exhibit P1 policy, which reads thus: "3. Revival of Discontinued Policies: if the policy has lapsed, it may be revived during the life time of the life assured, but within a period of 5 years from the date of the first unpaid premium and before the date of maturity, on submission of proof of continued insurabilily to the satisfaction of the Corporation and the payment of all the arrears of premium together with interest at such rate as may be prevailing at the time of payment compounding half yearly. The Corporation reserves the right to accept or decline the revival of discontinued policy. The revival of a discontinued policy stall take effect only after the same is approved by the Corporation and is specifically communicated to the life assured.” 22. The Corporation reserves the right to accept or decline the revival of discontinued policy. The revival of a discontinued policy stall take effect only after the same is approved by the Corporation and is specifically communicated to the life assured.” 22. As I have pointed out above, the basic contention advanced by the petitioner with respect to the lapse of policy, revival of the policy in the year 2007, subsequent lapse and the further claim raised by the Insurance Company towards the incorrect calculation of the revival premium etc. are all undisputed facts. 23. What is to be considered is whether the Life Insurance Corporation has got any right to charge the extra premium. First of all, I make it clear that the revival of the policy by charging an additional premium of Rs.34,200/-was never challenged by the petitioner. On the other hand, when the Corporation forwarded a communication to the petitioner claiming for Rs.34,200/-as a condition precedent to revive the policy, it was paid by the petitioner without any demur. However, later, the audit party has found that at the time of revival of the policy, the petitioner was aged 53 years, and thereupon, he was directed to pay an additional premium of Rs.4344/-by the corporation; and it was only then that the petitioner raised objection in respect of the amount paid by the petitioner for the revival of the policy even without any fuss. 24. Therefore, one thing is clear that the revival of the policy made in December, 2007 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a representation before Marketing Manager of the Corporation only in the year 2009, when the Corporation issued a letter to the petitioner asking for the payment of additional premium omitted at the time of revival of the policy. Admittedly, Exhibit P1 is a contract of insurance. As per clause 3 of Exhibit P1 policy, it is clearly specified that the matured policy is liable to be revived on submission of proof of continued insurability to the satisfaction of the Corporation and the payment of all the arrears of premium together with interest at such rate as may be prevailing at the time of payment compounding half-yearly. 25. 25. It was taking note of the rider contained in Exhibit P3 with respect to the insurability of the policyholder at the time of revival that the Ombudsman has found that the extra premium charged by the Corporation is in terms of Exhibit P1 policy conditions. Anyhow, all the amounts collected by the corporation other than the amount of Rs.1,26,209 towards annual premium was directed to be reimbursed to the petitioner. 26. In my considered opinion, as per clause 3 of Exhibit P1, the Corporation has the liberty either to accept or decline the revival of the discontinued policy, and the revival of the discontinued policy shall take effect only after the same is approved by the Corporation and is specifically communicated to the life assured. 27. It is an undisputed fact that when the petitioner sought for revival of the policy, the Corporation took into account the attendant legal and factual circumstances required for the purpose and communicated to the petitioner that the Corporation was interested in reviving the policy on the terms and conditions projected by the Corporation. In fact, the petitioner has paid extra premium on the basis of the condition insisted upon by the Corporation without any demur. It was only when the Corporation, after taking into account the age of the petitioner as 53 years at the time of revival, pointed out an error in calculation, the petitioner raised an objection with respect to the extra premium charged by the Corporation to revive the policy. 28. To put it otherwise, when there was leverage for the Corporation to decline the revival, it is also the privilege to insist on the conditions in order to revive the policy in terms of clause 3 of Exhibit P1 policy conditions. 29. Being a contract of insurance policy, the Corporation has expressed its willingness to revive the policy by making an offer with a revised extra premium. If the petitioner was not willing to accept the same, he is entitled to reject the same and discontinue the policy. However, the petitioner accepted the offer made by the Corporation without any objection or demur in December, 2007, and at a later point of time, when a calculation error was pointed out and asked for additional amounts towards the same, he cannot resile from the contract raising objections against the revival of the policy. 30. However, the petitioner accepted the offer made by the Corporation without any objection or demur in December, 2007, and at a later point of time, when a calculation error was pointed out and asked for additional amounts towards the same, he cannot resile from the contract raising objections against the revival of the policy. 30. Which thus means, when the offer made by the Corporation for the revival of the policy was accepted by the petitioner, the contract by and between the parties was concluded, and the same cannot be re-opened by making an objection at a later point of time. This is a basic principle in regard to validity of a contract by and between two parties. There is no case for the petitioner that in order to revive the policy there was any undue influence or fraud played by the Corporation against the petitioner. 31. The acceptance of the conditions for revival of the policy was an express one by making a communication and the acceptance of the same by the petitioner made the Corporation to think that the policy is to be revived and continued in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. 32. To put it otherwise, the Corporation was given the promise by the petitioner that he was prepared to pay an extra premium for the revival of the policy and continue to pay the same till the policy matured. The facts and circumstances being so, a reference to some of the provisions of the contract Act, 1872 would be relevant. 33. Section 3 dealing with communication, and acceptance of proposals; specifies that the communication of proposals the acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking by which he intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it. 34. Therefore, when the offer was made for revival on payment of extra premium through a communication, and the payment was effected by the petitioner without any demur in the year 2007, the acceptance of the conditions imposed by the Corporation by issuing communication has been completed by making the payment. 34. Therefore, when the offer was made for revival on payment of extra premium through a communication, and the payment was effected by the petitioner without any demur in the year 2007, the acceptance of the conditions imposed by the Corporation by issuing communication has been completed by making the payment. Even though the petitioner has a case that extra premium for revival was made in the year December, 2007 under protest, there is no document or convincing evidence produced by the petitioner either before the Insurance Ombudsman or before this Court to establish the said fact. 35. Section 4 of the Act, 1872 enumerates the communication when complete; and it stipulates that the communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made and the communication of an acceptance is complete, as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor; as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. It further specifies that the communication of a revocation is complete, as against the person who makes it, when it is put into a course of transmission to the person to whom it is made, so as to be out of the power of the person who makes it; as against the person to whom it is made, when it comes to his knowledge. 36. It is equally important to note that Section 5 of the Act, 1872 dealing with revocation of proposals and acceptances, makes it clear that a proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards; and an acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards. 37. Therefore, viewed from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it is unequivocal that revival of the policy was proposed by the corporation and accepted by the petitioner; and it was never revoked in a manner known to law as discussed above. 38. 37. Therefore, viewed from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it is unequivocal that revival of the policy was proposed by the corporation and accepted by the petitioner; and it was never revoked in a manner known to law as discussed above. 38. Section 6 of the Act, 1872 deals with the manner in which revocation has to be made; and it stipulates that a proposal is revoked—(1) by the communication of notice of revocation by the proposer to the other party; (2) by the lapse of the time prescribed in such proposal for its acceptance, or, if no time is so prescribed, by the lapse of a reasonable time, without communication of the acceptance; (3) by the failure of the acceptor to fulfill a condition precedent to acceptance; or (4) by the death or insanity of the proposer, if the fact of his death or insanity comes to the knowledge of the acceptor before acceptance. 39. None of the conditions contained in Section 6 of the Act, 1872 would come to the rescue of the petitioner in order to wriggle out of the contract, and the contract of the revival of the policy was entered into by and between the parties without any manner of objection from the petitioner. 40. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, and the law discussed above, I have no reason to think that the petitioner has made out any case of arbitrariness or illegality or other legal infirmities justifying interference in Exhibit P8 order passed by the Ombudsman in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say, writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.