1. Petitioner’s husband late V.G. Sasindran’s life was insured for Rs. 5,00,000/- with effect from 28.3.2003 under Ext. P1 policy issued by the first respondent Corporation. Ext.. P1 policy provides for quarterly payment of premium. Clause 2 of the terms and conditions of Ext. P1 policy provides for quarterly payment of premium. Clause 2 of the terms and conditions of Ext.P1 policy reads as follows:

“Payment of premium: A grace period of one month but not less than 30 days will be allowed for payment of yearly, or quarterly premiums. If death occurs within this period and before the payment of the premium then due the policy will still be valid and sum assured paid after deduction of the said premium as also unpaid premiums falling due before the next anniversary of the policy. If the premium is not paid before the expiry of the days of grace, the policy lapses.”

2. Ext.P1 policy commenced on 28.3.2003. The next date of payment of premium was 28.6.2003. The grace period of one month of payment expired on 28.7.2003. Petitioner’s husband did not pay the premium. He passed away on 29.7.2003. The petitioner’s claim for disbursement of the assured amount was rejected by the respondent Corporation as well as the Insurance Ombudsman on the ground that the policy had lapsed. The petitioner contends that her husband was in intensive care unit from 9.7.2003 and was therefore prevented from remitting the premium for reasons beyond his control.

3. The maximum lex non cogit and impossibilia pressed into service by the petitioner provide that a party prevented from doing any act by circumstances beyond his control can do at the first subsequent opportunity. The said principle will not help the petitioner since the premium due on 28.6.2003 was never paid within the grace period. In Jameela v. L.I.C. of India (2003 (3) KLT 215) a Division Bench of this Court observed thus:

“In law, life insurance is a contract between two parties. The insurer guarantees payment of a sum of money to the person assured or the nominee on the happening of a certain event. It is true that a family is always depending for its subsistence on the income of the breadwinner. During his lifetime the family is looked after by the person concerned. In the even of death, the payment by the insurer provides certain security. Yet the fact remains that the insurer becomes liable only when the prescribed event occurs. The payment becomes due either when the period for which the policy was issued lapses or the assured meets with his end. Otherwise, there is no provision of law or a term of contract which may entitle to assured or the nominee to claim the amount as mentioned in the policy of insurance.”

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grace period of one month expired on 29.7.2003 as the month is having 31 days. He further contends that on a reading of Clause 2 of the policy it is abundantly clear that the grace period is for one month not less than 30 days. The grace period can be extended for 31 days. Learned Counsel for the Corporation relies on the judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Java Chandel ((2008) 3 SCC 382 = (1 (2008) CPJ 81 (SC)) wherein the Apex Court held that the premium cheque received after the grace period of 30 days under S.64 – VB is not applicable. National Commission is not justified in its conclusion about applicability of S.64 – VB. The Apex Court in Paragraphs 6 and 7 held as follows:

“The grace period is one month and, therefore, the State Commission was not justified in holding that the payment was made within the grace period. Condition 3 relates to revival of discontinued policy. A bare reading of the condition shows that it can be revived during the life time of the assured. In the instant case the cheque was admittedly received after the death of the assured. Further the revival takes effect only after the same is approved by the Corporation and is specifically communicated to the life insured. In t