HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17922 of 2009 Between: The Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambedkar Chowk Area, Adilabad and one another ..... PETITIONERS AND T. Satyvathi, W/o Late T. Laxman age 40 years and two others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order- dated 17.2.2009 in F.A.No. 799 of 2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of A.P., which was preferred against C.C.No. 74 of 2005 on the file of District Consumer Forum , Adilabad and quash the same as illegal. Brief facts of the case are that first respondent herein approached the District Consumer Forum, Adilabad by way of filing C.C.No. 74 of 2005 alleging that she is the wife of late T. Laxman and also the nominee in the Postal Life Insurance Police obtained by her deceased husband for an assured sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on payment of Rs. 1,463/- as advance premium and the same was accepted with effect from 31.3.2004 by their letter which was received on 29.5.2004. along with premium receipt book. It is stated that the deceased husband was suffering from fever from 20.5.2004 and he was admitted as in- patient in Hospital at Adilabad. As his condition was serious, he was referred to Hyderabad, and during the course of treatment he died on 5.6.2004 at Hyderabad. Meanwhile the pass book was sent by the Deputy Divisional Manager (PLI) served at Police Station on 29.5.2004 in cover vide RL No. 1195 and that was noticed by the first respondent after the death of the deceased while they went to bring the luggage of the deceased from police station, Neradigonda. After that the first respondent applied to the Department for the policy amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-since her husband died on 5.6.2004 and the same was rejected by the competent authority on the plea that the policy was lapsed as the insured person did not pay the premium for the month of April, 2004 to June 2004. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent approached the District Consumer Forum, Adilabad for the policy amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the complaint and the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint directing the petitioners herein to pay the assured sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the complaint after deducting due premium, Rs.500/- as costs and further directed to reimburse the court fee of Rs. 200/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, while observing that as per clause (2)(v) of PLI Rule 39 if the policy holder’s death occurs during period of remission, the claimant is entitled to receive claim amount after deducting the premium due if any. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners herein filed F.A.No. 799 of 2006 before the A.P. State Commission and the same was dismissed confirming the order of the District Consumer Forum, Adilabad holding that Rule 39 is not applicable and also the policy holder died during the period of grace for payment of premium. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition ha been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn our attention to Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, which reads a under: “4. Communication when complete: The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. The communication of an acceptance is complete- as against the proper, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor; as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. The communication of a revocation is complete,- as against the person who makes it when it is put into a course of transmission to the person to whom it is made, so as to be out of the power of the person who makes it; as against the person to whom it is made, when it comes to his knowledge. Illustrations (a) A proposes, by letter, to sell a house to B at a certain price. The communication of the proposal is complete when B receives the letter. (b) B accepts A’s proposal by a letter sent by post. The communication of the acceptance is complete—as against A, when the letter is posted; as against B, when the letter is received by A. (c) A revokes his proposal by telegram. The revocation is complete as against A when the telegram is dispatched. It is compete as against B when B receives it. B revokes his acceptance by telegram. B’s revocation is complete as against A when it reaches him.” He tried to impress upon us with reference to the illustrations contending that once B accepts A’s proposal by a letter sent by post , the communication of the acceptance is complete as against A, when the letter is posted; as against B, when letter is received by A. We are unable to accept this contention since both the authorities concurrently held that when once proposal was sent and the same was accepted by the acceptor and it was communicated, it becomes operative. Merely because the first respondent has not paid the premium for three months, the same does not by itself ipso facto give them a right to disentitle the payment of the amount covered under the policy. In view of the circumstances which are beyond the control of the first respondent and since her husband was admitted in the hospital and finally he was shifted to Hyderabad, where he died in the hospital ultimately, she could not pay the premium. Hence, the appellate court rightly observed that the very policy was accepted on 31.3.2004 and the next premium was due on 30.4.2004 and since the payment in the grace period is allowed and in the meantime he died, it cannot be said that the policy was lapsed. The first respondent was entitled to the amount covered under the policy. It also held that the District Forum after considering the facts in its correct perspective opined that the first respondent is entitled to the amount covered under the policy. In view of the above we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 28.08.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.