SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(AP) 142

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.KUMARAYYA, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Life Insurance Corporation of India - Appellant
Versus
Tada Tirupathayya - Respondent
Decided On : 08-18-62

Acceptance of premium in arrear along with good-health declaration by insurer revives lapsed policy.

Headnote:

INSURANCE - LIFE INSURANCE - POLICY - LAPSE - REVIVAL - PAYMENT OF PREMIUM IN ARREAR ALONG WITH GOOD-HEALTH DECLARATION - ACCEPTANCE BY INSURER - EFFECT - POLICY REVIVED - IN FORCE ON DATE OF DEATH OF ASSURED - INTEREST ON AMOUNT CLAIMED - AWARDED FROM DATE OF SUIT.

Fact of the Case:

The assured, Viswanadham, insured his life for Rs. 10,000 with the Warden Assurance Company Limited. The policy was an endowment policy, with an additional sum equal to the sum assured payable in case of death in an accident. The assured paid the first yearly premium. The second yearly premium fell due on 20/05/1951. The assured paid the premium amount with interest subsequently and furnished a good health declaration on 2/07/1951. On 22/07/1951, the assured and his wife met with their death in a drowning accident. The plaintiff, the brother of the assured, claimed the amount due on the policy. The insurer contended that the policy had lapsed owing to nonpayment of the premium within the period specified in the policy.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the policy had not lapsed as the premium was paid in accordance with the terms of the policy to the agent of the insurer; that the assured, acting on the advice of the agent, furnished to the insurer the declaration of good health; that on the date of the death of the assured, the policy was in force; and that by right of survivorship, the plaintiff being the undivided brother of the assured, is entitled to the amount claimed.

Issues: 1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Whether the assured died first, and his wife the nominee under the policy, died later, and that therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the amount as the heir of the assured. 3. Whether the policy had lapsed owing to nonpayment of the premium within the period specified in the policy.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the policy did not contain a term that a suit in respect of the policy shall lie in no Court other than that having jurisdiction over the city of Bombay. 2. The assured died earlier than his wife, as evidenced by the testimony of witnesses who were present at the accident. 3. The policy had not lapsed as the premium in arrear along with the good-health declaration was accepted by the insurer, which ipso facto brought about the revival of the policy.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the Memorandum of cross-objections was allowed. The plaintiff was entitled to his costs both in the appeal and the cross-objections. The decree of the lower Court was modified to award interest at 6% per annum on the sum of Rs. 20,000 from the date of suit till the date of payment.

RAJU, J.

( 1 ) BY a policy of insurance, dated 29/06/1950, the plaintiffs brother, Viswanadham (hereinafter referred to as the assured), insured his life for a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 with the Warden Assurance Company Limited, the 1st defendant (hereinafter referred to as the insurer ). The policy was, what is generally known as, an endowment policy. Under the terms of the policy, in return for the payment of an annual premium of Rs. 292-8-0 on May 20th of every year, for 40 years, the insurer agreed to pay the assureds heirs the sum of Rs. 10,000. 00if the death of the assured should take place before the expiration of the period, and the like sum to the assured himself if he should survive the period. There is also a special term in the policy which provided that in case the assured died in an accident, an additional sum equal to the sum assured would be paid. It is common ground that the assured nominated his wife, Anasuya, as the person to whom the money secured by the policy should be paid in the event of his death. We shall presently refer to the material terms of the policy.

( 2 ) THE assured paid the first yearly premium. The second yearly premium on the policy fell due on 20/05/1951. The case of the plaintiff is that the assured actually paid the premium on 21/05/1951, to the agent of the insurer, but this fact is disputed. It is, however, admitted that the assured paid the premium amount with interest subsequently and that he also furnished a good health declaration on 2/07/1951.

( 3 ) ON 22/07/1951 the assured and his wife met with their death in" a drowning accident in the river stream Paleru while they were both traveling by a passenger bus. Claiming that himself and his brother (the assured) were members of a joint family and that he became entitled to the benefits of the policy by right of survivorship, the plaintiff called upon the insurer by a registered notice, to pay the sum of Rs. 10,000, the sum assured under the policy, plus an additional sum equal to the sum assured, by reason of the fact that his brother died in an accident.

( 4 ) IN its reply notice, the insurer intimated the plaintiff that the policy had lapsed owing to nonpayment of the yearly premium before the expiration of the days of grace. While not denying that the assured paid the premium and furnished proof of continued good health subsequently, the insurer contended that the signature on the good health declaration form was in Telugu while in the proposal and the medical report the signatures of the assured were in English and that while the insurer was making the necessary enquiries about the genuineness of the signature of the assured, the assured died and therefore the policy could not be revived.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, on 22/07/1954 for recovery of the sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 as the amount due on the policy.

( 6 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the policy had not lapsed as the premium was paid in accordance with the terms of the policy to the agent of the insurer; that the assured, acting on the advice of the agent, furnished to the insurer the declaration of good health; that on the date of the death of the assured, the policy was in force; and that by right of survivorship, he being the undivided brother of the assured, is entitled to the amount claimed.

( 7 ) THE Warden Assurance Company Limited was impleaded as the 1st defendant; and the Life Insurance Corporation of India in whom the assets of the 1st defendant have been statutorily vested, was impleaded as the 2nd defendant in the action.

( 8 ) NO separate written statement of defense was filed by the 2nd defendant.

( 9 ) THE insurer contested the suit on three-fold grounds: (1) that the Court in which the suit was instituted, viz. , the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayavada, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; (2) that the assured died first, and his wife the nominee under the policy, died later, and that therefore the
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top