Back
2023 Supreme(Ker) 28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
N.J. James, S/o. Late N.C. Joseph – Petitioner
Versus
L.I.C. Of India, Represented By Its Chairman, Central Office, Yogakhema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai, Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 14097 Of 2013
Decided On : 13-01-2023
For the Petitioner: Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan (SR.), Sri. Antony Mukkath, Smt. K. Radhamani Amma.
For the Respondents: Sri. T.S. Harikumar, Sri. K. Jagadeesh, Sri. P.B. Sahasranaman.
Point of Law: None of the conditions contained in Section 6 of the Act, 1872 would come to the rescue of the petitioner in order to wriggle out of the contract, and the contract of the revival of the policy was entered into by and between the parties without any manner of objection from the petitioner.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Redressal of Public Grievance Rules, 1998 - Rule 12(1) (c) r/w Rule 13 - Life Insurance Corporation – Premium – Refund - Petitioner, who is the complainant filed this writ petition challenging order passed by the Ombudsman by which it was allowed partly directing the LIC, respondent No.1, to refund the entire amount collected in excess of the premium per annumand further to comply with the award within 15 days of receipt of the acceptance letter and intimate compliance to the Ombudsman – Whether petition is maintainable –
Finding of the Court:
Contract, and the contract of the revival of the policy was entered into by and between the parties without any manner of objection from the petitioner – Section 5 of the Act, 1872 dealing with revocation of proposals and acceptances, makes it clear that a proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards; and an acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards. petitioner has made out any case of arbitrariness or illegality or other legal infirmities justifying interference in Exhibit P8 order passed by the Ombudsman in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner, who is the complainant in complaint No.10/KCH/L1/21-001-723/2009-10 on the files of Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi, has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P8 order dated 24.05.2010 passed by the Ombudsman by which it was allowed partly directing the Life Insurance Corporation of India, respondent No.1, to refund the entire amount collected in excess of the premium of Rs.1,26.209/-per annum, since 2005 and further to comply with the award within 15 days of receipt of the acceptance letter and intimate compliance to the Ombudsman.
2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner is the holder of a Life Insurance Policy bearing No. 391097063 with a maturity value of Rs.20,00,000/-. The above policy commenced on 28.01.2001 and will mature only on 28.01.2030 though the last payment date is 28.01.2029. The yearly premium in respect of the above policy was Rs.87,665/-falling due on the 28th January of every year, as is evident from Exhibit P1 policy certificate. Petitioner was paying the premium regularly up to the year 2004. Exhibit P1 policy became lapsed due to the non-payment of the premium due on 28.01.2005. Petitioner submitted a revival application to revive the policy in the year 2007. The Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Vaikom Branch, respondent No.4, revived the above policy on 19.12.2007 with effect from 28.01.2005 re-fixing the yearly premium at the rate of Rs.1,21,865/-, as is evident from Exhibit P2.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner has paid the amount claimed by the Life Insurance Corporation in terms of the revival of the policy and has paid the premium of the year 2008 also at the revised rate. Thereafter, in the second half of the year 2009, the petitioner was directed to pay a further sum of Rs.4,344/-for each year from January, 2005 onwards with interest and the late fee stating that there was calculation mistake in the premium and the petitioner is bound to pay the arrears due to the LIC.
4. In the meanwhile, the policy again lapsed due to the nonpayment of the premium due in January, 2009. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,26,740/-towards the revival of the policy. According to the petitioner, he remitted the said amount on 11.07.2009 under protest. Thereafter, petitioner was served with Exhibit P3 notice dated 26.08.2009 along with Exhibit P4 revival of the quotation dated 27.08.2010 intimating that Rs.1,26,740/-remitted by him on 11.07.2009 has been kept in deposit and required him to pay an amount of Rs.22,616/-more before 11.09.2009 to revive the policy.
5. In Exhibit P3, it is stated that the LIC had collected the revival amount by considering the yearly premium at Rs.1,21,865/-and the audit team, during audit, pointed out that the correct premium on account of charging health extra premium comes to Rs.126209/-and therefore, the petitioner has to remit Rs.13032/-towards difference in 3 yearly premium, late fee of Rs.1536/-and also an amount of Rs.4436/-as difference in premium due on January, 2008. According to the petitioner, it is only from Exhibit P3 petition, he came to know for the first time that he was charged with health extra premium, which is not a condition stated in Exhibit P1 policy, and enhancing his premium to Rs.1,21,685/-was without any reasonable basis.
6. However, it is submitted that the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.22,766/-on 23.12.2009 under protest to revive his policy, as is evident from Exhibit P5 letter dated 23.12.2009. It is also submitted that immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted a complaint dated 01.01.2010 before the Marketing Manager of the LIC, Divisional Office, Kottayam, respondent No.3, pointing out that there is no provision for demanding the enhanced premium from the insurer; that during the period from 28.01.2005 to 19.12.2007 the policy was on a lapsed condition; that no risk was covered during that period and withou
