IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5514 of 2005(F)
1. P.RAJASEKHARAN, AGED 64 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN
For Respondent :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :30/06/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.5514 OF 2005
------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. The petitioner is a retired Engineer. On 30.4.1999 he
took an Insurance Policy as evidenced by Ext.P1 from the
respondent Corporation. The policy got matured on 28.2.2004.
Ext.P2 is the communication issued by the 2nd respondent
intimating about the amount due under the matured policy. The
petitioner was requested to issue a discharge voucher in order to
effect payment of the amount noted in Ext.P2. But disputing
correctness of the computation petitioner submitted Ext.P3
representation to the 2nd respondent, and subsequently Ext.P5
representation to the Chairman of the 1st respondent
Corporation. According to the petitioner the amount calculated
does not include “Loyalty Addition” on the policy, which was
promised. The terms regarding payment of ‘Loyalty Addition’ is
dealt with under the heading ‘special provisions’ enumerated in
Ext.P1, which reads as follows:-
“Special Provisions:-
1. Compound Guaranteed Addition: A Guaranteed
Addition at compound rate of Rs.85 per thousand
for the first five years and Rs.90 per thousand
thereafter will be added to the Policy at the end of
each policy anniversary and will be payable when
the Sum Assured becomes payable.
W.P.(C).5514/2005 2
2. Loyalty Addition: On the Life Assured
surviving the stipulated Date of Maturity this
policy may be eligible for payment of a Loyalty
Addition at such rate and on such terms as may
be declared by the Corporation.”
It is evident that when “compound guaranteed addition” is
offered at specific rates for each year, “Loyalty Addition” is
specified only as an optional benefit, for which the policy holder
may be eligible depending on declarations if any made by the 1st
respondent Corporation. In the counter affidavit of the
respondents it is stated that the Corporation had not declared
“Loyalty Addition” for various reasons. It is explained that the
pecuniary burden upon the Corporation depends on valuation
results of the Corporation at the end of each financial year.
Normally the combined actual experience of the Corporation will
be tested in the light of the investment returns, expenses and
mortality, in order to decide whether any declaration of the
optional benefits can be granted or not. In this case, considering
the above parameters it is stated that, the Corporation is not in a
position to declare any “Loyalty addition” with respect to the
policy.
2. An insurance policy is basically a contract between
the insurer and the insured, the terms and conditions of which
are governed by the policy. In the realm of contract, unless
there is specific obligation on the part of the insurer, the insured
W.P.(C).5514/2005 3
cannot insist upon for any benefit which are not committed
through the contract. Since the “Loyalty addition” is not an
obligation guaranteed under the contract, the petitioner cannot
insist for payment of any amount under that count, as a matter of
right. However, it is for the authorities of the Corporation to
consider whether any benefit of the “Loyalty addition”, as
granted in the case of any other policy holders, can be extended
in the case of the petitioner also. Since the petitioner is not
entitled for any amount as a matter of right, this Court is not in a
position to issue any positive directions in this regard. Hence
the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the amount offered by the 2nd respondent has not so far been
received by him, because of the pending dispute. If the
petitioner furnishes discharge voucher, the amount will be
disbursed by the respondents without any further delay.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb