E.J. Bellie, President

1. The opposite party Branch Manager L.I.C. of India, Sivaganga Branch is the Appellant. The complainant's husband had taken a policy for Rs. 20,000/- with the opposite party on 26.12.91. The 2nd premium of the policy should have been paid on or before 28.3.92, but that has not been paid even before 28.4.92 with penalty. On account of this, the policy became lapsed. Now the case of the complainant is that her husband had obtained a demand draft for Rs. 488/- being the premium amount on 6.6.92 and sent it through Post Office which had reached the opposite party on 8.6.92. Her husband died on 6.6.92 itself. Then she made a claim with the opposite party for payment of the insurance amount. But that was repudiated. On these grounds the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to pay the policy amount and also damages.

2. The opposite party contended that the complainant's husband died on 6.6.2 itself, but the premium has been received on 8.6.92 and a lapsed policy could be revived only during the life time of the policy holder on payment of the premium. But the premium had been paid only subsequent to the death of the policy holder and therefore there is no revival of the lapsed policy and as such the complainant is not entitled for the amount claimed.

3. The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant and ordered payment of the policy amount and damages. It is against this order the opposite party has come up with this appeal.

4.It is not in dispute that for non-payment of the 2nd premium the policy became lapsed. The only question is whether the lapsed policy has been revived. Condition No. 3 in the policy clearly says that a lapsed policy can be revived only during the life time of the policy holder by payment of necessary premium. In the above case the policy holder died on 6.6.92. The D.D. which is said to have been obtained by the policy holder on that date i.e. 6.6.92, had reached the 2nd opposite party on 8.6.92. According to the opposite party, since the premium amount has been received on 8.6.92 and the policy holder died on 6.6.92, it cannot be said that the payment of premium has reached the opposite party and the policy has been revived during the lifetime of the policy holder. It is contended by the complainant that since the DD has been obtained on 6.6.92 before the policy holder died and the same having been posted to be delivered to the opposite party, it must be deemed that the premium has been paid during the life time of the policy holder. We are unable to accept this contention of the complainant. Condition No. 3 of the policy is clear that a lapsed policy can be revived during the life time of the policy holder. That means, the premium for the revival should have been paid to the opposite party during the life time of the policy holder. We do not accept the argument that obtaining of a DD for the premium and sending it through Post Office on 6.6.92 i.e. on the day when the policy holder died would be enough to show that the premium had been paid during the life time of the policy holder. This cannot be accepted because t

he DD has reached the opposite party only on 8.6.92. In this view of ours the District Forum is not correct in accepting the case of the complainant and ordering an award. 5. Accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.