Thiru Justice S.A. Kader, President— This is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The Complainants are heirs and legal representatives of Late Murugesan, who died on 28.4.91. The said Murugesan had taken a Policy of Life Insurance with the 2nd Opposite Party fora sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The 1st Complainant, who is his wife is the Nominee under the Policy. The premium was Rs. 1,247.50 payable quarterly. The 3rd premium due on 23.2.91 was not paid within the period or even during the grace period of one month. On 27.4.91, the deceased Murugesan took a Pay Order for the policy amount of Rs. 1,247.50 and interest of Rs. 12.50, totalling Rs. 1,260/- from the UCO Bank and sent it to the 2nd Opposite Party by post under 'Certificate of Posting.' The Pay order has been encashed by the 2nd Opposite Party on 3.5.91. The 2nd Opposite Party sent the demand notice for the 4th quarterly premium due on 22.6.91. But, in the meanwhile, the said Murugesan died in an accident on 28.4.91. The Complainants claim the policy amount and the 2nd Opposite Party repudiated the claim on the ground that the assured died before revival of the policy. Hence this claim.

3. The claim is resisted by the Opposite Party. The Complainant took the Policy of Insurance commencing from 22.9.90 and the premium was payable quarterly on the 22nd of March, June, September, December every year. The first two premiums due on 22.9.90 and 22.12.90 were duly paid. The 3rd quarterly premium fell due on 22.3.91 and was not remitted either on the due date or even before the expiry of the grace period of one month. The policy, therefore, lapsed on 22.4.91. The Pay Order for Rs. 1,260/- was received by the 2nd Opposite Party on 30.4.91. The 2nd Opposite Party was informed of the death of the assured only on 26.6.91, that is, after 2 months. The notice for premium due on 26.6.91 was sent in the routine manner as the 2nd Opposite Party was not aware of the death of the assured. The Complainant cannot take advantage of this premium notice. It is pointed out that revival of lapsed policy is not automatic. The Corporation has legal and contractual right to take a decision regarding revival after the receipt of the revival requirements. In the instant case, even before the Banker's Pay Order was received by the Opposite Party, the assured had died and there was, therefore, an impossibility of revival in the instant case.

The claim was, therefore, rightly rejected. There was no deficiency in service.

4. Exhibits A-1 to A-17 are marked by consent. Proof Affidavits are filed. No oral evidence had been let in.

5. The point which arises for consideration is whether there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party-Insurer.

6. Point: The 1st Complainant's Husband and Father of 2nd Complainant and Son of 3rd Complainant had taken a Policy of Life Insurance for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22.9.90. Ex. Al is the Policy of Insurance. The 1st Complain- ant is the Nominee under the policy. The premium is payable quarterly on or before 22nd of March, June, September, December of every year. The assured has paid the first two quarterly premiums in time, due on 22.9.90 and 22.12.90 in time. The 3rd premium was due on 22.3.91. He did not pay on the due date or even before expiry of the grace period of one month. According to the Opposite Parties, therefore, the policy automatically lapsed on 22.4.91. The case of the Complainant is that on 27.4.91, the assured sent the policy amount with interest, totalling Rs. 1,260/- by Pay Order drawn from the UCO Bank by post under Certificate of Posting under Ex. A10, dated 27.4.91, which was a Saturday. The 2nd Opposite Party claimed to have received the Pay order on 30.4.91 and it has been encashed on 3.5.91 as is seen from Ex. A17 communication from the UCO Bank. The question which arises for consideration is whether the policy has been revived and the Complainants are entitled to claim the am