IMPORTANT POINTS
1. For purposes of Section 45 of the Life Insurance Act, 1938 the period of two years has to be counted from the date of which the policy was originally effected and not rom the date of revival of the policy.
2. Onus to prove that deceased had suppressed the facts was on Insurance Company after lapse of two years from the date of issuance of policy.

Ashok Bhan, President—Life Insurance Corporation of India-petitioner herein, who was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short), has filed the present Revision Petition.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:-

2. The husband of the Complainant-respondent herein, was carrying on Kirana Business at Mailapur, Tehsil-Yadagir and he insured his life with the petitioner on 28.06.1997 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Premium was to be paid @ Rs.1,419/- per quarter. According to the respondent, the deceased was paying premium regularly and the last premium was paid on 24.03.2000. Husband of the Complainant died on 08.05.2000. Respondent, being the nominee, claimed the insured amount. Petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that deceased made deliberate misstatements and withheld correct facts regarding the state of his health. Thereafter, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

3. On being noticed, the petitioner entered appearance and field written statement. The defense taken was that the deceased did not remit the quarterly premium on time. Intermittently, there were certain lapses but the installments were paid later on with late fee. As the deceased failed to pay one of the quarterly installments, the policy had elapsed which was got renewed only five months prior to his death.

4. It was further stated that insured had given a false declaration regarding the condition of his health at the time of revival of the Policy. Parties led their evidence. District Forum, vide its Order dated 31.12.2002, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 19.09.2001 till its realization to the Complainant. Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.500/- as costs.

5. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an Appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short). The State Commission, by the impugned Order, has dismissed the Appeal. Submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the deceased had not paid the quarterly premium installment due on 28.03.2000 and, therefore, the same had lapsed, was rejected by the State Commission observing thus:

“...Though on 28.03.2000 is the due date, still it was open for the insured to pay the premium with in the grace period. If the insured fails to pay the premium even before the expiry of the grace period under Section 50 of the Insurance Act, the Insurance Company is required to intimate whether the policy was lapsed or not. In the instant case, there is no such intimation by the OP. If that is so, it is clear the Insurance Company kept the policy alive as on the date of the death of the insured. Taking this fact in to consideration, the DF is right in allowing the complaint. The husband of the complainant, from the evidence it is seen, died on account of the cancer. According to the Insurance Company the fact of he suffering from cancer has not been disclosed. In order to establish this fact, the Insurance Company had not filed any affidavit of a Doctor.”

6. It is not disputed before us that the Policy was not repudiated on the ground that at the time when initial Policy was taken, there was any mis-representation or initial concealment of facts by the deceased. In the present case, two years had elapsed after the issuance of the Policy and the burden to prove that the deceased had concealed the facts was the Insurance Company in terms of Section 45 of the Life Insurance Act, 1938.

7. Shri Ashok Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon a Judgment passed by a 4-Member Bench of this Commission in L.I.C. of India and Another v. Parveeen Dhingra1 contended that the revival of the