The main legal point established in the judgment is that there must be unqualified acceptance of insurance proposals, and silence does not denote consent in insurance proposals.

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. The defendant-Life Insurance Corporation of India has filed this First Appeal against the Judgement and Decree dated 8th July, 1993 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, 1st, Court-Munger in Money Suit No. 6 of 1989 decreeing the plaintiff respondent suit for realization of Rs. 78,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 17.3.1989.

2. The plaintiff-respondent, Gopal Prasad Verma filed the aforesaid suit praying for the aforesaid relief on the facts which may be stated briefly that his wife, Smt. Shakuntala Devi was educated woman and was earning a lot from tuition and tailoring. She was insured in L.I.C. from before. Subsequently with a view to obtain double accident benefit submitted a fresh proposal for insurance of her life for Rs. 75,000/- on 30.3.1987 under table No. 75.20 in the Branch Office of L.I.C. at Munger through agent B.P. Fitkiriwala. She deposited on 30.3.1987 itself first yearly premium of Rs. 5,460/- which was accepted by Branch Manager who was the competent authority to accept the proposal. According to the plaintiff if the proposal were not for double accident benefit and extended permanent disability benefit then according to table of rates the yearly premium would have been Rs. 5,385/- only. However, unfortunately, Smt. Shakuntala Devi died on 5.12.1987. Because of negligence on the part of the Life Insurance Corporation and its officers neither the policy bond nor the first premium receipt was granted and communicated to her in her lifetime.

3. The further case is that after the death of Smt. Shakuntala Devi, the plaintiff filed claim before the Branch Office at Munger, but he was paid only Rs. 75,000/- and the L.I.C. denied the payment of double accident benefit which is further Rs. 75,000/- and a letter dated 16.6.1989 was communicated to him informing him that under the Rules then prevalent the life assured could not be for double accident benefit, so the amount of Rs. 75/- was kept in deposit for refund. The policy was issued without double accident benefit. It is further pleaded that the said policy was issued after death of Smt. Shakuntala Devi and during her life time she was never informed that double accident benefit was not allowed to her. It is said that there was no such rule which prohibited acceptance of double accident benefit to educated woman with huge income. The defendants have accepted the first premium but not communicated to Smt. Shakuntala Devi during her lifetime so they are estopped by the rule of estoppel to repudiate the liability to pay compensation for double accident benefit.

4. On being noticed, the defendants-appellants appeared and filed a contesting written statement. The main defence is that the deposit of Rs. 5,460/- was without any instruction from the office, so, it cannot be called to be the yearly premium. The premium is determined only after the acceptance of the proposal and issuance of premium receipt. Since the deposit was made before acceptance of proposal, it cannot be termed as premium rather it is merely a deposit only. In paragraph 11 of the written statement, the appellants admitted to have granted the first premium receipt of Rs. 5,385/- only on 31.3.1987. However, it is said that the policy bond was prepared and issued on 21.3.1988 because normally, it takes time for preparation. It is further alleged that the policy was accepted without double accident benefit and, therefore, claim for double accident benefit was not entertained. Out of the deposit of Rs. 5,460/-, the amount of Rs. 5,385/- was adjusted towards the first premium leaving in deposit a sum of Rs. 75/- for subsequent refund to the proposer. The first premium receipt dated 31.3.1987 was issued much before the date of death of the life assured. All allegations were denied.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Court below framed 6 issues. It is not necessary to go into great detail regarding other issues except issue No. 5 which i