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. 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. According to petitioner 1, on 27-5-1993, he wrote a letter to respondent 3 requesting him to drop the condition of u