IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 36255 of 2004(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LATHA RAJANARAYAN, NOTTATH HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA, THRISSUR-675 033. 2. JOHN IGNATIUS, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (POSTAL LIFE INSURANCE), O/O.POST MASTER GENERAL, CALICUT 673 011. ADV. SRI.P.S.BIJU, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 36255/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT NO. 7653 DATED 12.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.7.2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REFUND ORDER DATED 27.8.2003 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED 27.8.2003 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRU COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. = = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 36255 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is the widow of deceased Rajanarayan, has approached this Court challenging the action of the respondents in denying the benefit of a Postal Life Insurance Policy sought to be taken by the deceased, effecting payment of necessary premium, just before his death. 2. The case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that her husband was serving as a Sub Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at Calicut Air Port. At the instance of the second respondent, (Development Officer engaged by the authorities of the Postal Department) he decided to take out a policy and accordingly, effected payment of a sum of Rs. 1,875/- so as to avail a policy having a value of Rs. 5 lakhs, on 12.6.2003. The payment of the advance premium as aforesaid is evidenced by Ext.P1 receipt issued by the second respondent on the same date, ie. on 12.6.2003. But unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner met with an accident on the very same day and he took his last breath while returning home riding his motor cycle, after his duty in the Air Port. WP(C) 36255/2004 2 Subsequently, petitioner preferred Ext.P2 representation dated 15.7.2003 before the first respondent pointing out the sequence of events and also requesting to forward the original policy her. The policy, in fact, had already been despatched in the earlier address of the deceased husband, which happened to be returned 'unclaimed' in view of the turn of events. But on finding that the proposer was no more, the advance premium amount was refunded to the petitioner along with Ext.P3 letter dated 27.8.2003 from the office of the first respondent, followed by Ext.P4 letter, making it clear that the proposal made by the deceased husband of the petitioner was accepted only on 24.6.2003 and that the death of the aforesaid person was not within the knowledge of the first respondent or the Departmental authorities at the time of acceptance or issuance of the policy. 3. The claim is sought to be resisted by filing a detailed counter affidavit by the first respondent, conceding the acceptance of the advance premium of Rs. 1,875/- and the submission of the application preferred by the deceased husband of the petitioner for joining the Postal Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on 12.6.2003. Referring to Rule No. 22 of the Post Office Insurance Fund Rules, it is stated that the Post Master General is authorised to engage the Development Officer in the circle to WP(C) 36255/2004 3 collect the advance deposit of the first premium from the proponents with clear understanding that the risk will not commence earlier than the date of the acceptance of the proposal by the Postmaster General, provided, the advance deposit is not less than the amount of first premium which is worked out after the proper scrutiny of the proposal. Accordingly, all the formalities were completed in connection with the proposal dated 12.6.2003 and it was accepted by the first respondent on 24.6.2003, giving coverage to the policy with effect from the date of acceptance of proposal, ie. from 24.6.2003 and forwarded the policy documents to the deceased. At the time of accepting the proposal on 24.6.2003 or even at the time of despatch of the documents, the factum of death of the proponent was never within the knowledge of the first respondent. It was only after note of the subsequent turn of events, especially as to the death of the proponent on the very same day of submission of the proposal for the policy on 12.6.2003, that it was observed that there was no valid policy as on the date of the death, ie. on 12.6.2003 and the advance premium was refunded; which is well within the four walls of law and is not assailable under any circumstances. 4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent, this WP(C) 36255/2004 4 Court finds that no case has been established on the part of the petitioner to controvert the specific averments raised in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. True, the petitioner had filed I.A. 15863 of 2008 to call for certain documents from the first respondent. The contention raised in the affidavit in support of the said I.A. that the advance premium having been received on 12.6.2003, the policy actually commences from the said date itself is beyond all logical limits and the relevant provisions of law in the realm of contract. Any proposal will give rise to a contract only when it is accepted. The payment of an advance premium does not give any absolute or vested right for the proponent to have the proposal accepted and to have had the policy with effect from that date; unless the same is accepted on such terms by the party on the other side. No reference is made to any provision of law to the contrary or any binding judicial precedent to sustain the claim as now put forth from the part of the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to call for any such documents as sought for in the I.A., which cannot improve the case of the petitioner in any manner; by virtue of the 'admitted fact' that the proposal was made only on 12.6.2003 and that the husband of the petitioner took his last breath on the very same day, it was not at all possible for the first respondent to have issued the policy giving coverage with effect from WP(C) 36255/2004 5 12.6.2003. In such circumstance, this Court finds it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner. Interference is declined and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-