LPA No. 154 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 154 of 2011 Date of decision 18 . 7.2011 Life Insurance Corporation of India and others . Appellants Versus . Mukesh Sharma .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 4.8.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner- respondent is entitled to revival of three insurance policies taken by him. The detail of the three insurance policies, as given in the impugned judgement, is as under: “i) 20 years' Jeevan Surbhi Policy No. 170615741 dated 1st March, 1993 (Date of maturity 2013, sum assured Rs. 5 lacs ii)20 years' Jeevan Surbhi Policy No. 170815326 dated 28th December, 1994 (Date of maturity 2014, sum assured Rs. 1 lacs. iii) New Jeevan Shree Insurance Policy No. 162219663 dated 30th March, 2002 for 25 years for a sum assured Rs. 5 lacs (Date of maturity 2027)' 2. It has come on record that the writ petitioner- respondent defaulted LPA No. 154 of 2011 2 in making payment of premiums in March, 2006, December, 2005 and February, 2006 respectively in relation to the aforesaid policies. On account of non deposit of one instalment in each of the policies, the same stood lapse. According to Clause 3 of the insurance policies, which is common in all the three policies, it could be revived during the life-time of the assured and within a period of five years from the date of first unpaid premium and before the date of maturity. The writ petitioner- respondent satisfied all the aforesaid requirements. The period of five years from the date of first unpaid premium has not expired and the revival was sought much before the date of maturity. However, the controversy before the learned Single Judge was that the writ petitioner- respondent himself submitted proof of 'continued insurability to the satisfaction of the Corporation'. It proceeded to order dated 5.8.2007 (P.4) declining the request made by the writ petitioner- respondent without assigning any reasons. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant it was stated that the writ petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of continued insurability because in medical examination he has been found suffering from adverse ECG findings; FBS 166, PGBS 225 and Urine +++,;Uncontrolled Diabetes Mellitus and Overweight with BMI as 33. The other objection raised was that the writ petitioner- respondent had approached the Consumer Forum which has declined the desired relief. The learned Single Judge having placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Manubhai Dharamsinghbhai Gajera (2008) 10 SCC 404 proceeded to hold that the plea of continued insurability raised by the appellant was totally arbitrary. The view of the learned Single LPA No. 154 of 2011 3 Judge is discernible from para 12 of the judgement which reads thus: “12. In the case of the petitioner also, the revival of the policies has been declined on the solitary ground that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the “continued insurability”. The plea, suffice it to observe, is totally arbitrary and illogical for the obvious reason that the first policy was purchased by the petitioner in March, 1993 and during long period of over 17 years if he has been able to maintain himself hale and hearty with minor health hazards, it cannot be said that the petitioner does not satisfy the test of insurability. Neither the fluctuating ECG or the petitioner being a diabetic are sufficient to categorise him 'insurable', nor the health conditions as were existing when the policies were taken, can be insisted upon at the time of their renewal. Since Clause 3 of the policies expressly enables the policy holder to seek revival within a period of five years from the date of first unpaid premium and before the date of its maturity, on submission of proof of continued insurability, the petitioner is also entitled to seek their renewal subject to payment of unpaid premium, if any, alongwith interest up-to-date.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. 4. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that action of the appellants is within the meaning of Clause 3 of the Insurance Policies and a strict construction on the aforesaid clause has to be placed whereas learned counsel for the writ petitioner- respondent has argued that if the assured has defaulted in making payment of one instalment then he cannot be asked to satisfy the policy in respect of his health particularly when the changes in the ECG are minor. According to the learned counsel liberal construction is required to be given in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. LPA No. 154 of 2011 4 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for revival of the policies do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. On equitable consideration, the learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that on account of minor changes in ECG or other parameters, Clause 3 of the policy cannot be invoked and the appellant cannot decline the request made by the writ petitioner- respondent within the period stipulated in the clause. The writ petitioner- respondent satisfies all other requirements. Minor changes in the sugar level or ECG cannot be made basis for declining the revival of the policies. The counsel for the appellant has not raised any argument with regard to availing remedy before the District Consumer Forum because the Consumer Forum has non-suited the writ petitioner- respondent on the ground that it was not a case of deficiency in service which in other words would mean that he was permitted to approach any other forum. 6. For the reasons afore mentioned this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 18.7 .2011 Judge okg