IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5514 of 2005(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.RAJASEKHARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, RETD. ENGINEER, S/O.P.KUNHIRAMAN, KULANAGARA MADAM, THAIRUVANGAD, TELLICHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, L.I.C. OF INDIA, CENTRE OFFICE, MUMBAI. 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, JEEVAN PRAKASH, L.I.C. OF INDIA, P.B.NO.177, KOZHIKODE-1. ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE FOR R1 & R2 SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R1 & R2 SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).5514/05 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF POLICY ISSUED BY R1 EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE FORM DT.10.7.03 EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT TO BRANCH MANAGER, TELLICHERY BRANCH II OF CORPORATION DT. 21.2.04 EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF REPLY OF THE SR.DIVISIONAL MANAGER,LIC DT.26.2.04 EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF REGD.LETTER SENT TO THE CHAIRMAN, LIC OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE, MUMBAI DT.18.3.04 EXT.P6:-TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT IN HINDU DAILY DT.10.2.05 EXT.P7:-TRUE COPY OF REPORT IN HINDU DAILY DT.17.9.04 EXT.P8:-TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE SENT TO R1 DT.30.9.04 EXT.P9:-TRUE COPY OF REPLY SENT BY R2 DT.26.10.04 EXT.P10:-TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MAGAZINE YOGAKSHEMA, OCT.2004 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.5514 OF 2005 ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The petitioner is a retired Engineer. On 30.4.1999 he took an Insurance Policy as evidenced by Ext.P1 from the respondent Corporation. The policy got matured on 28.2.2004. Ext.P2 is the communication issued by the 2nd respondent intimating about the amount due under the matured policy. The petitioner was requested to issue a discharge voucher in order to effect payment of the amount noted in Ext.P2. But disputing correctness of the computation petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation to the 2nd respondent, and subsequently Ext.P5 representation to the Chairman of the 1st respondent Corporation. According to the petitioner the amount calculated does not include “Loyalty Addition” on the policy, which was promised. The terms regarding payment of 'Loyalty Addition' is dealt with under the heading 'special provisions' enumerated in Ext.P1, which reads as follows:- “Special Provisions:- 1. Compound Guaranteed Addition: A Guaranteed Addition at compound rate of Rs.85 per thousand for the first five years and Rs.90 per thousand thereafter will be added to the Policy at the end of each policy anniversary and will be payable when the Sum Assured becomes payable. W.P.(C).5514/2005 2 2. Loyalty Addition: On the Life Assured surviving the stipulated Date of Maturity this policy may be eligible for payment of a Loyalty Addition at such rate and on such terms as may be declared by the Corporation.” It is evident that when “compound guaranteed addition” is offered at specific rates for each year, “Loyalty Addition” is specified only as an optional benefit, for which the policy holder may be eligible depending on declarations if any made by the 1st respondent Corporation. In the counter affidavit of the respondents it is stated that the Corporation had not declared “Loyalty Addition” for various reasons. It is explained that the pecuniary burden upon the Corporation depends on valuation results of the Corporation at the end of each financial year. Normally the combined actual experience of the Corporation will be tested in the light of the investment returns, expenses and mortality, in order to decide whether any declaration of the optional benefits can be granted or not. In this case, considering the above parameters it is stated that, the Corporation is not in a position to declare any “Loyalty addition” with respect to the policy. 2. An insurance policy is basically a contract between the insurer and the insured, the terms and conditions of which are governed by the policy. In the realm of contract, unless there is specific obligation on the part of the insurer, the insured W.P.(C).5514/2005 3 cannot insist upon for any benefit which are not committed through the contract. Since the “Loyalty addition” is not an obligation guaranteed under the contract, the petitioner cannot insist for payment of any amount under that count, as a matter of right. However, it is for the authorities of the Corporation to consider whether any benefit of the “Loyalty addition”, as granted in the case of any other policy holders, can be extended in the case of the petitioner also. Since the petitioner is not entitled for any amount as a matter of right, this Court is not in a position to issue any positive directions in this regard. Hence the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount offered by the 2nd respondent has not so far been received by him, because of the pending dispute. If the petitioner furnishes discharge voucher, the amount will be disbursed by the respondents without any further delay. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb