Jameela vs L.I.C. of India

Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.—The petitioner''s husband was working as an automobile broker. On 8.9.1991 he met with an accident. He suffered head injury. He was left with post traumatic psychosis. It deteriorated into depression. The petitioner alleges that her husband has been declared insane.

The petitioner''s husband had taken out six insurance policies for a total sum of Rs. 2,20,000/-. The individual policies would mature on different dates during the period from 3.10.2004 to 28.1.2015. Thus, payment has not become due under any of the policies so far. The petitioner approached the respondent Life Insurance Corporation for payment of the matured value of the policies. Her request having been declined, she approached this Court with the prayer that it be declared that the petitioner was entitled to the payment of money for the full value of the policies. The petition having been dismissed by the learned single Judge, the petitioner has filed the present appeal.

Mr. Ibrahim, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the entire concept of insurance is calculated to serve the social cause of providing security to the family. The object is to protect the dependants of the person who is unable to take care of the family either on account of death or otherwise. Such being the position, the counsel submits that the appellant was entitled to the payment of the full value for which the life of her husband has been assured.

In law, life insurance is a contract between two parties. The insurer guarantees payment of a sum of money to the person assured or the nominee on the happening of a certain event. It is true that a family is always depending for its subsistence on the income of the breadwinner. During his lifetime the family is looked after by the person concerned. In the event of death, the payment by the insurer provides certain security. Yet, the fact remains that the insurer becomes liable only when the prescribed event occurs. The payment becomes due either when the period for which the policy was issued lapses or the assured meets with his end. Otherwise, there is no provision of law or a term of contract which may entitle the assured or the nominee to claim the amount as mentioned in the ''policy'' of insurance.

Mr. Ibrahim contends that a technical interpretation of the terms of contract would lead to injustice. In a certain situation, the contention as raised by the counsel may be well founded. However, in law, the claim as made on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained. The acceptance of the submission can lead to wrong and sometimes even unjust results. It can place a heavy and unbearable burden on the insurance company. In any event, an interpretation which is contrary to the plain terms of the contract would not be a legal device to provide succour to the family of a disabled person. Still further, it is the admitted position that in accordance with terms of the policy the payment of premium was waived with effect from the date of the accident. Even payment of allowance as admissible under the terms of the policy was made. Thus, the family was provided with some help in accordance with the terms of the contract.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is consequently dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.