WP(C) 3392/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY The petitioner, who is the widow of Jogesh Chandra Deka, an employee of Assam Khadi & Village Industries Board (in short, the Board), by the present pet ition, is praying for a direction to the respondents, including the Life Insuran ce Corporation of India (in short, the Corporation), to satisfy the claim lodged by her on account of the death of her husband, against the group insurance cove r scheme policy No.GSLI MP No.26223. The petitioner’s husband, who was the Registrar of the Board, died in ha rness on 4 March 2001. While her husband was in service, a group insurance polic y bearing No.GSLI MP No.26223 was taken by the Board, with its Chief Executive O fficer as the master policyholder, from the respondent Corporation insuring the lives of its employees, including the petitioner’s husband. Under the scheme of such policy, the master policyholder is required to deposit lumpsum premium afte r deducting proportionate amount from the members of the group. One of such prem iums was payable in the month of February 2001. The master policyholder, however , initially had issued a cheque dated 5 March 2001 in favour of the respondent C orporation towards the premium payable in the month of February 2001, but the sa me, on presentation, was dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the A/c of the Board and as such, the Board was accordingly informed by the Corporation. The Bo ard, subsequently on 31 May 2001, made payment of the premium amount payable, wh ich was accepted by the Corporation by realizing the fine/interest. The entire p olicy thereafter stood revived on acceptance of such premium payable in the mont h of February 2001. Before making such payment, unfortunately, on 31 May 2001, p etitioner’s husband, who was a member of the group, died on 4 March 2001. A clai m application was thereafter filed on 10 April 2001 in the respondent Corporatio n claiming an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-(Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand) only, which, according to the petitioner, was payable under the policy for the death of her husband. Since the claim application was not processed, an application wa s thereafter filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the rep ly of which was given by the Corporation on 27 October 2009 intimating her that the policy was in lapsed condition at the time of the death of her husband as th e premium was paid only on 31 May 2001. It was also informed that the claim, how ever, has not been repudiated. It is also not in dispute that the amount deducti ble from the salary of the petitioner’s husband was deducted by the employer nam ely the master policyholder and the payment of lumpsum premium was made to the r espondent Corporation, maybe with the delay of about 3 months. Since the claim of the petitioner has not been settled by the respondent Corporation, she has filed the present petition seeking the relief as aforesaid . I have heard Mr A Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr BJ Ghosh, lear ned State counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1; Mr A Thakur, learned couns el for the respondent Nos.2 & 3; and Mr KK Nandi, learned counsel for the respon dent Nos.4,5 & 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since under the scheme the emplo yer is required to deduct the contribution payable by the members of the group t owards the share of the premium amount and there is no provision under the schem e requiring the Corporation to inform the members of the group individually abou t the non-payment of such premium and the Corporation having never at any point of time informed any of its members about the non-deposit of the premium payable by the employer i.e. the master policyholder, the Corporation cannot decline to settle the claim on the ground that the premium was paid after 3 months from th e day it fell due, that is, in the month of May 2001, towards the premium payabl e in the month of February 2001. Learned counsel submits that all the members we re under the impression that proportionate premium deducted from their salary wa s duly deposited by the master policyholder and as such, no members of the group can be made to suffer for the inaction/lapse, if any, on the part of the master policyholder in not depositing the premium in time with the Corporation, more s o when for the purpose of the policy there is a relationship of master and agent between the Corporation and the Board. Learned counsel, in support of his conte ntion, has placed reliance on a decision of the apex court in Chairman, Life Ins urance Corporation & Ors -vs- Rajiv Kumar Bhasker, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 188. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, on the other hand, has s ubmitted that under the scheme the master policyholder is required to deposit th e premium payable in the first week of every month, after deducting the proporti onate amount of premium from the salary of the individual members of the Board, and in the instant case, since the premium payable in the month of February 2001 was deposited only on 31 May 2001, i.e. much after the death of the petitioner’ s husband, the policy in respect of the member who is dead, stood lapsed though the said policy stood revived in respect of the surviving members. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand, has submitted that the Corporation, on 31 May 2001, has accepted the entire premium including the shar e of premium payable by the petitioner’s husband, and by such action the earlier policy stood revived. It has also been submitted that the Corporation was aware about the death of the petitioner’s husband on 10 April 2001 and despite that, had accepted the entire premium amount on 31 May 2001, and by such act the Corpo ration has revived the entire policy. Learned State counsel has submitted that the State has nothing to do wit h the matter, since it is a dispute between the Board and Corporation vis-à-vis the petitioner. The facts narrated above are not in dispute. Under the scheme of the gro up insurance policy, the respondent Corporation undertook to cover the risk of t he members of the group, subject to the payment of lumpsum premium by the master policyholder, that is, by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board. Under the s cheme, the master policyholder is required to deduct the proportionate amount to wards the premium from the salary of each of the members and then to deposit the same with the respondent Corporation. There is absolutely no provision in the s cheme of the policy for making payment by the individual members of the group di rectly. The premium on lumpsum basis is to be paid by the master policyholder, t hat is, the Chief Executive Officer of the Board. The petitioner’s husband, as n oticed above, had died on 4 March 2001, where-after on 10 April 2001, the claim application was filed before the respondent Corporation. It also appears from th e facts narrated above that the premium due in the month of February 2001 was pa id, and realized by the Corporation on 31 May 2010, with penalty/interest. Since under the scheme of the group insurance policy a responsibility wa s cast upon the master policyholder, that is, the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, the master policyholder partakes the character of an agent, in so far as the group insurance scheme is concerned. There being no provision and the Corpo ration having not informed the members of the group insurance scheme about the f ailure of the master policyholder to deposit the premium amount in time, the mem bers of such group cannot be made to suffer for non-payment of premium by the ma ster policyholder to the Corporation, despite deduction from the salary of the m embers. The Corporation, in fact, on a subsequent date i.e. on 31 May 2001, had accepted the entire premium and thereafter never at any point of time had inform ed the Board that they have deposited more amount than required, after the death of one of its members, about which they had the knowledge at least on 10 April 2001. The apex court, in LICI(supra), has held that the LICI cannot be absolved from i ts liability of satisfying the claim, when under any scheme the employer is requ ired to make the deposit of insurance premium after deducting the same from the salary of the employee. It has also been observed that if for some reasons, the employer is unable to pay the salary to the employees, as for example, its finan cial constraints, the employee may be held to have legitimate expectation to the effect that his employer would at least comply with its solemn obligations and such obligations having been undertaken to be performed by the employer at the b ehest of the Corporation, as its agent having the implied authority therefor, th e Corporation cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong as also the wrong of its agent. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the Corporation canno t be absolved from the liability of satisfying the claim lodged by the petitione r against the group insurance policy, and hence the Corporation is directed to p ay the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to under the policy, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this orde r to be produced before the respondent Nos.3 & 4 by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.