9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the terms and conditions mentioned in the group insurance master policy and the premium had not been paid in due time, i.e., 1st July, 1989, as required under the policy, but paid subsequently on October 27, 1989. Therefore, premium having been received on that day, the said scheme was allowed to be applicable with effect from October 27, 1989. It is contended that the Corporation did not accept the premium in respect of the petitioner's husband but only a proportionate premium from October 27, 1989, to June 30, 1990, and the excess premium paid was refunded to the company on March 20, 1990. The Corporation having accepted the premium only in respect of persons living on October 27, 1989, and no premium having been accepted in respect of an employee for the period prior to October 27, 1989, there is no risk covered so far as the petitioner's husband is concerned and the persons who were living on October 27, 1989, alone were covered under the group insurance master policy and not the petitioner's husband who died on October 21, 1989, and therefore, it is contended that the Corporation is not liable to make good the payment sought for by the petitioner. 3. It is urged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot think the Corporation can rely upon the decision in Kiran Sinha's case AIR 1985 SC 1265, to contend that no relief should be granted to the petitioner and consequently, that contention is rejected. 5. The other contention urged on behalf of the Corporation that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the Corporation but only between the company and the Corporation and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner does not appeal to me at all. Indeed when the policy itself makes it clear that the beneficiaries under the policy are the employees or their heirs, the policy itself is for their benefit under which the payments will have to be made by the Corporation. Although it is a rule of English law that normally a stranger to consideration or contract cannot bring a legal action, Indian law is quite different. Section 2(a) of the Contract Act while defining " consideration " includes the words " the promisee or any other person" and that clearly shows that a stranger to consideration can sue. When the statute is so clear, no precedent is required to be referred to in support thereof. On the proposition that a stranger to a con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rates. . . 7. It shall be a condition of employment for all future employees that they must become members thereof on the respective entry dates which coincide with or which immediately next follow the dates on which they become eligible employees and the grantees shall take effective steps to ensure that they do so. In the event of any breach of this condition, the Corporation shall be entitled to give written notice to the grantees determining forthwith the rights of the grantees to pay any further premiums thereunder. 8. Every employee shall become entitled to the benefits under the policy as from the entry date on which he first becomes an eligible employee or ( subject to the consent of the grantees and the Corporation and to production at his own cost if so required by the Corporation, of evidence of health in the form and manner prescribed by the Corporation ) as from any subsequent entry date. . . 11. If the grantees do not renew this policy on any annual renewal date by paying the premiums then falling due or within 30 days following the said date ( or within such extended time as the Corporation may allow) the grantees shall (unless the Corporation otherwise agree) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the general conditions which is already set out earlier. It provides that if the policy is not renewed on any annual renewal date by paying the premium falling due thereof or within 30 days following the said date or within such extended time the Corporation may allow, the grantees shall be deemed to have discontinued the premium unless the Corporation otherwise consents, shall not be entitled to resume the payment except with the consent of the Corporation. 8. The sequence of events is that the company made the premium on October 27, 1989, and also informed that one of its employees had died on October 21, 1989. It is only on March 20, 1990, the Corporation sought to refund a portion of the premium which is proportionate to the premium attributable to the petitioner's husband. Under the scheme of the policy as referred to earlier, the payment of the premium is with reference to the entire group of employees and not with reference to any particular member. But once the premium had been paid by the company and had been accepted by the Corporation, it must be held that it is relatable only to the annual renewal date and no other date. It is not permissible, under the terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
