The acceptance of premiums by the insurer after a lapse indicates the policy remains active, validating the Permanent Lok Adalat's decision to allow the claim.

ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

Though the matter is listed in the 'fresh category' however, on the joint request of the parties it is being heard today itself.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash and set aside impugned order dated 08.11.2023 (Annex.1) passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Pali.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Life Insurance Corporation (LIC for short) is a Corporation established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956. On 04.01.2017 Shri. Kantilal procured one 'New Jeevan Anand' life insurance policy (Annex.2) bearing No. 101953691 having plan No. 815 (New No. 915) from LIC for sum of Rs 2,00,000/- qua which a monthly premium of Rs 1,005/- was to be directly deducted from his salary. The policy holder gave an authorisation letter (Annex.3) to his employer i.e. Nagar Palika Jaitaran, District Pali to deduct the premium amount from his salary and deposit the same with the LIC.

4. The premium qua the insurance policy for the months of March 2017 to July 2017 was not paid by the policy holder's employer, which is fortified by the letter written by the Municipality, Jaitaran to the LIC. As the Premium for 5 months was not paid by the policy holder thus, the said dues had to be set off from the premiums so made qua the later months. The period of unpaid premium was adjusted till June 2019 and the policy expired/lapsed in June 2019 and thereafter on 21st November 2019 the policy holder expired and thereafter, his wife/respondent filed for the claim from the insurer petitioner. After due enquiry the claim was refuted through a letter dated 28.12.2020 (Annex. 5) by LIC stating the reasons that the policy has already lapsed.

5. An application (Annex.6) under section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 was preferred by the respondent before Permanent Lok Adalat stating therein that the insurance has been denied wrongly and further prayed to grant relief by way of claim of Rs 3 lacs and 1 lac for mental agony at the rate of interest of 18% and Rs1000 as costs.

6. The petitioners filed reply (Annex.7) stating therein that the policy has already expired and lapsed. Thereafter the respondent filed a rejoinder(Annex.8).

7. The Permanent Lok Adalat Pali vide order dated 8.11.2023 (Annex.1) allowed the claim filed by the respondent and ordered to pay Rs 2.50 lacs along with 6% interest and also ordered to pay Rs.5000/- against legal costs to the claimant w.e.f 13.12.2020 i.e. from the date of the submitting the application before PLA. Petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 8.11.2023 (Annex.1) hve preferred this writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and illegal as the Permanent Lok Adalat Pali has not taken into consideration the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner and has also not considered the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat deserves to be dismissed.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat Pali has not appreciated the fact that the policy holder did not pay the premium for 5 months as per the conditions and stipulations of the insurance policy and, therefore, due premium has been already adjusted by the LIC and the adjustment of the unpaid premium is correct. He also submits that the premium of 5 months i.e. March 2017 to July 2017 remained unpaid due to the policy holder, the said dues were rightfully set off from the payments of premium so already made for the months from June 2019 to November 2019 and thereafter, the adjustment of the premium, the period of months for which premium still remains due begins from June 2019 and as the policy holder expired in November 2019 without making the payments of the premium hence, the policy lapsed in June 2019 as the payment was due from the month June 2019. Thus, the order passed by th