Acceptance of premium payments after the policyholder's death, with knowledge of the death, constitutes a waiver of the lapse and precludes the insurer from raising the plea of lapse.

S.SHAMSUL HASAN, J.

1. The petitioner has in this writ application prayed for quashing Annexure-10 and also seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment to the petitioner the amounts payable to her on the insurance policies of her husband of which she is the nominee.

2. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased purchaser, late Sri Arun Kumar Sinha, of three insurance policies from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). By communication dated 2-9-1981 which is Annexure-10 the Divisional Manager of the Corporation has finally informed the petitioner that since the policies stood lapsed on the date of the death of the insured, no amount is payable to the petitioner.

3. There is no dispute that late Arun Kumar Sinha died on 10-1-1980. He was holding three life insurance policies in his own name with respondent No. 1 the Corporation, at the time of his death. The relevant details of the policies are as follows :-

(See relevant details of policies below) The stand of the petitioner is that on 5-1-1980 a cheque for Rs. 954.10 paise on the United Industrial Bank, Ranchi, being cheque (No. 001532 was paid in the office of respondent No. 1 in presence of one Sri Vijay Gopal, Advocate, and Sri I.N. Jha, the agent of the Corporation who was responsible for the sale of the Policies to the deceased. On 7-1-1980 a money order was sent by the petitioner for Rs. 249.30 paise from Daltonganj as payment of premium of the third policy. The aforesaid cheque was for the payment of first two policies dated 9-8-1978. It is not disputed that no receipt was obtained by the deceased when the aforesaid payment by cheque was made by him. This application contains affidavits by Sri Vijay Gopal and Sri I.N. Jha which are Annexure-1 and 1A to this application to the effect that they were present when deceased deposited the cheque. Sri I.N. Jha has also stated that he was responsible for the sale of the policies to the deceased-assured. Sri Jha in his affidavit has also stated a fact of considerable relevance to this dispute to which reference would be made later. He has stated that on 12-1-1980 he had informed the office of the Branch Manager, Life Insurance

Policy No. Amount assured for Premium due for

1. 30717199 date of commencement

9-8-1978 Rs. 10,000/- Only November 1979.

2. 30732808 date of commencement

5-2-1979. Rs. 20,000/- Only August and November, 1979.

3. 30719937

date of commencement

9-8-1978. Rs. 10,000/- Only August and November, 1979.

Corporation of India, Branch 1 and 2, Ranchi, about the death of the deceased and on the same day he had also requested for claim forms from the office. He was advised to obtain the form from the Jamshedpur Office. He had also informed one Sri E. Viswanathan the Development Officer of the Corporation on the same day, that is, 12-1-1980, about the death of the deceased. On 12-1-1980 the petitioner filed an application before respondent Nos.4 and 5 which is Annexure-2 to this petition. This application dated 12-1-1980 was a request for claim form from the respondents and also an intimation to them once again about the death of the deceased-assured having occurred on 10-1-1980 and her being a nominee under the said policies. It is stated by her that respondents 4 and 5 directed her to obtain the claim form from respondent No.2. She has asserted that respondent No.1 and other respondents were at all material time in possession of the knowledge of the death of the deceased. Annexure-3 is a letter of Sri E. Viswanathan dated the 12th January, 1980 conveying his condolence to the brother of the deceased who has also stated in that letter that he was informed about the death by Sri I.N. Jha, the Corporation agent. On 28th July, 1980, a communication was sent by the Divisional Manager of the Corporation from Jamshedpur to the petitioner which is Annexure-4 to the petition stating that premium in regard to the first two policies was recei