RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.versusJAYA WADHWANI

                  [2024] 1 S.C.R. 65 : 2024 INSC 10
                                 Case Details

           Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
                                      v.
                             Jaya Wadhwani
                        (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2024)
                              03 January 2024
               [Vikram Nath* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
                           Issue for Consideration
       What would be the date from which the policy becomes effective;
       whether it would be the date on which the policy is issued or the
       date of the commencement mentioned in the policy or it would
       be the date of the issuance of the deposit receipt or cover note.

                                  Headnotes
       Insurance – Insurance Policy – Date from which the policy
       becomes effective – Assured persons committed suicide –
       Claims filed by respondent, allowed – Revision filed by the
       appellant was dismissed, NCDRC affirmed the orders passed
       by the District Forum and the State Commission holding that
       the appellant was liable to pay the amount of the sum assured
       on the death of the assured – Forums below proceeded on the
       basis that the date of issuance of the initial deposit receipt
       of premium is the date of commencement of the Policy –
       Propriety:
       Held: Date of issuance of the policy would be the relevant date
       for all the purposes and not the date of proposal or the date of
       issuance of the receipt – Date of proposal cannot be treated to
       be the date of policy until and unless on the date of proposal,
       initial deposit as also the issuance of policy happens on the
       same date – Merely tendering a cheque may not be enough as
       till such time the cheque is encashed, the contract would not
       become effective – Clause 9 of the terms and conditions inter alia
       stated that the Company will not pay any claim on death if the
       Life Assured committed suicide within 12 months from the date of
       issue of the Policy or the date of any reinstatement of the Policy
       – Once it is mentioned in the Policy that the 12 months period is
       to commence from the date of the issuance of the policy or the
       date of any reinstatement of the policy, the reinstatement aspect

* Author
66                                                           [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                   DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS


      ought to have been considered – In the case of ‘US’, the date of
      reinstatement of the policy was clearly stated to be 25.02.2014
      and that was also the date of commencement of policy, both the
      dates being the same – Thus, the date of incidence of suicide
      being 03.06.2014, it was well within 12 months – Further, in the
      case of ‘JW’, proposal form was submitted on 14.07.2012 with
      respect to the cheque dated 13.07.2012 – 14.07.2012 cannot be
      taken to be the date of issuance of policy – The date of issue of
      policy being 16.07.2012 was actually the date from which the policy
      commences and becomes effective – Period of 12 months from
      16.07.2012 would complete on 15.07.2013 – It would be the last
      day of 12 months as from the next day, i.e., 16.07.2013 the next
      month will start – Incidence of suicide was on 15.07.2013, the
      last day of 12 months – Stand taken by the appellant approved –
      Impugned orders set aside – Claims of the respondent rejected.
      [Para 5, 8, 9-11, 15 and 16]

                  List of Citations and Other References
             Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another vs.
             Dharam Vir Anand [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 295:(1998)
             7 SCC 348; Life Insurance Corpn. of India vs. Mani
             Ram [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 342:(2005) 6 SCC 274 –
             referred to.

                              List of Keywords
      Consumer Protection; Insurance; Insurance Policy; Effective date
      of policy; Suicide.

          Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and
                            Appearances

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.35 of 2024.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2019 of the National
      Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP
      No.2909 of 2018.
      With
      Civil Appeal No.36 of 2024.
      Appearances:
      Sachin Subhash Daga, Rajesh Kandari, Vikas Upadhyay, Arjun Singh
      Tomar, Ms. Ankita Kashyap, Advs. for the Appellants.
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                            67

           RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. v.
                           JAYA WADHWANI

      Nitin S. Tambwekar, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Advs. for the
      Respondent.

                      Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court
                                   Judgment
      Vikram Nath, J.
      Leave granted.
2.    These two appeals raise a common question of law. As such they are
      being analogously dealt with by this common order. The challenge in
      both these appeals is to the orders passed by the National Consumer
      Disputes Redressal Commission1, New Delhi, whereby the revision
      filed by the appellant has since been dismissed and the orders
      passed by the District Forum as also the State Commission have
      been affirmed holding that the appellant is liable to pay the amount
      of the sum assured on the death of the assured.
3.    The sole question involved in these appeals is as to what would
      be the date from which the policy becomes effective; whether it
      would be the date on which the policy is issued or the date of the
      commencement mentioned in the policy or it would be the date of the
      issuance of the deposit receipt or cover note. The District Consumer
      Disputes Redressal Forum2, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
      Commission3 and the National Commission have proceeded on the
      basis that the date of issuance of the initial deposit receipt of premium
      is the date of commencement of the Policy and have accordingly
      allowed the complaint filed by the respondent.
4.    The relevant dates in both the cases are summarised hereunder:
      4.1 In the appeal of Jaya Wadhwani, the quotation of Policy was
          issued on 14.07.2012. The proposal form was submitted by
          the life assured on 14.07.2012. Receipt of the Cheque dated
          13.07.2012 was also issued on 14.07.2012. On 16.07.2012, the
          Policy was issued and at all relevant places, it was mentioned in
          the policy that the date of commencement of the policy would be
          16.07.2012. On 15.07.2013, the life assured committed suicide.


1    NCDRC
2    District Forum
3    State Commission
68                                                          [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                  DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS


      4.2 In the appeal of Usha Soni, the date of submission of proposal
          form by the life assured is 26.09.2012. The date of issue of policy
          as also the date of commencement of policy was 28.09.2012.
          The date of next premium due was 28.09.2013. As the next
          premium was not paid, the policy lapsed. The assured paid
          the next premium on 25.02.2014 and the lapsed policy was
          reinstated from that date. On 03.06.2014, the life assured
          committed suicide.
5.    The Clause relevant for consideration is clause 9 of the Policy
      conditions and privileges and the terms and conditions mentioned
      therein. Clause 9 reads as follows:
           “9. Suicide: The Company will not pay any claim on death
           if the Life Assured, whether sane or insane, commits suicide
           within 12 months from the date of issue of this Policy or
           the date of any reinstatement of this Policy.”
6.    From the documents on record in the case of Usha Soni, we find
      that the first cheque was issued on 26.09.2012. The policy issuance
      and commencement date in the Policy is mentioned as 28.09.2012.
      Further, the next premium due was on 28.09.2013. Grace period
      is 30 days under Clause 1(iv) of the terms and conditions. Clause
      5 mentions that the policy would lapse. Clause 6 provides for
      reinstatement. However, since the renewal amount was not paid within
      the time allowed, the policy stood lapsed and subsequently, upon
      payment of the premium against the lapsed policy on 25.02.2014, the
      policy was reinstated from the said date. The life assured committed
      suicide on 03.06.2014, which was well within the period of 12 months.
7.    On a perusal of the orders passed by the District Forum, the State
      Commission, and the National Commission, we find that although
      clause 9 of the terms and conditions has been referred to but the
      aspect of reinstatement of a lapsed Policy has not been considered.
      They have wrongly taken the date of issue of policy only as the
      relevant date to count 12 months, i.e., from 28.09.2012.
8.    Once it is mentioned in the Policy that the 12 months period is to
      commence from the date of the issuance of the policy or the date of
      any reinstatement of the policy, the reinstatement aspect ought to have
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                           69

        RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. v.
                        JAYA WADHWANI

     been considered. The date of reinstatement of the policy is clearly
     stated to be 25.02.2014 and that is also the date of commencement
     of policy, both the dates being the same. Thus, the date of incidence
     of suicide being 03.06.2014, it was well within 12 months.
9.   Now, coming to the case of Jaya Wadhwani, the proposal form, no
     doubt, was submitted on 14.07.2012 with respect to the cheque dated
     13.07.2012 of the premium amount wherein also it was mentioned that
     the receipt is issued subject to the clearance of the cheque and further
     that the insurance protection shall only be provided effective from
     the date of acceptance of the risk, which happened on 16.07.2012,
     when the policy was issued and the date of commencement was
     notified to be the same date.
10. 14th July 2012, therefore, cannot be taken to be the date of issuance
    of policy. It is only the date of issue of receipt of the initial premium.
    The date of issue of policy being 16.07.2012 is actually the date
    from which the policy commences and becomes effective.
11. In the present case, period of 12 months from 16.07.2012 will complete
    on 15.07.2013. It would be the last day of 12 months as from the
    next day, i.e., 16.07.2013 the next month will start. Unfortunately, the
    incidence of suicide is on 15.07.2013, the last day of 12 months. The
    date of proposal cannot be treated to be the date of policy until and
    unless on the date of proposal, initial deposit as also the issuance of
    policy happens on the same date where, for example, the premium
    is paid in cash then, immediately, the policy could be issued. Merely,
    tendering a cheque may not be enough as till such time the cheque
    is encashed, the contract would not become effective. The drawer
    of the cheque may, at any time, after issuing, stop its payment or
    there may not be enough funds in the account of which the cheque is
    issued and there could be many other reasons for which the cheque
    could be returned without being encashed.
12. We may also refer to the two judgments relied upon by the counsel
    for the appellants, in support of his submission that the terms and
    conditions of the contract as contained in the policy should be strictly
    adhered to. Otherwise mentioning of the terms and conditions would
    be a futile exercise, if any other interpretation is given or terms and
    conditions are relaxed.
70                                                           [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                         DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS


13. In this connection, it would be useful to reproduce the extract which
    form part of paragraph 6 in the case of Life Insurance Corporation
    of India and Another vs. Dharam Vir Anand4. It reads as follows:
             “6. Having examined the rival submissions and having
             examined the policy of insurance which is nothing but
             a contract between the parties and having considered
             the expressions used in Clause 4-B of the terms of the
             policy, we are persuaded to accept the submissions made
             by Mr. Salve, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
             the appellant. In construing a particular Clause of the
             Contract, it is only reasonable to construe that the words
             and the terms used therein must be given effect to. In other
             words, one part of the Contract cannot be made otiose by
             giving a meaning to the policy of the contract. Then again,
             when the same Clause of a contract uses two different
             expressions, ordinarily those different expressions convey
             different meanings and both the expressions cannot be
             held to be conveying one and the same meaning. Bearing
             in mind the aforesaid principle of construction, if Clause
             4-B of the terms of policy is scrutinized, it become crystal
             clear that the date on which the risk under the policy has
             commenced is different from the date of the policy. In the
             case in hand, undoubtedly the date on which the risk under
             the policy has commenced is 10.5.89 but the date of the
             policy is 31.03.1990 on which date the policy had been
             issued. Even though the Insurer had given the option to
             the Insured to indicate as to whether the policy is to be
             dated back and the insured indicated that the policy should
             be dated back to 10.05.1989 and did pay the premium
             for that period, thereby the risk under the policy can be
             said to have commenced with effect from 10.5.1989 but
             the date of the policy still remains the date on which the
             policy was issued i.e. 31.03.1990. The death of the life
             assured having occurred as a result of suicide committed
             by the assured before the expiry of three years from the


4     (1998) 7 SCC 348
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                            71

        RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. v.
                        JAYA WADHWANI

           date of the policy, the terms contained in Clause 4-B of the
           policy would be attracted and, therefore, the liability of the
           Corporation would be limited to the sum equal to the total
           amount of premium paid under the policy without interest
           and not the entire sum for which the life had been insured.
           The Forums under the Consumer Protection Act committed
           gross error in construing Clause 4-B of the policy and giving
           the same meaning to the two expressions in the aforesaid
           Clause 4-B namely “the date on which the risk under the
           policy has commenced” and “the date of the policy”. The
           construction given by us to the provisions contained in
           Clause 4-B get support, if the proviso to Clause 4-B is
           looked into. Under the proviso, if the life assured commits
           suicide before expiry of one year reckoned from the date
           of the policy, then the provisions of the Clause under the
           heading “suicide” printed on the back of the policy would
           apply. In a case therefore where a policy is dated back for
           one year prior to the date of the issue of the policy, the
           proviso contained in Clause 4-B cannot be operated at all.
           When parties had agreed to the terms of the contract, it
           is impermissible to hold that a particular term was never
           intended to be acted upon. The proviso to Clause 4-B will
           have its full play if the expression “the date of the policy”
           is interpreted to mean the date on which the policy was
           issued and not the date on which the risk under the policy
           has commenced. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the
           considered opinion that under Clause 4-B of the policy the
           date of the policy is the date on which the policy had been
           issued and not the date on which the risk under the policy
           had commenced by way of allowing it to be dated back.
           In view of our aforesaid construction to Clause 4-B, in the
           case in hand, the respondent in law would be entitled to
           only the sum equal to the total amount of premium paid
           under the policy without any interest inasmuch as the
           death of the life assured has occurred before the expiry
           of three years from the date of the policy, i.e., 31.3.1990…
           ………”
72                                                             [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                         DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS


14. Relying upon the above judgment in the case of Dharam Vir Anand
    (supra), this Court again in the case of Life Insurance Corpn. of
    India vs. Mani Ram5, reiterated the same view and held that the
    date of issue of policy would be the relevant date even if there was
    backdating as has been done in the case of Dharam Vir Anand
    (supra).
15. In the present appeals, we do not find any such issue of back
    dating but the date of issuance of the policy would be the relevant
    date for all the purposes and not the date of proposal or the date
    of issuance of the receipt. In view of the above, the stand taken
    by the appellant is approved. The impugned orders are thus liable
    to be set aside.
16. Accordingly, the orders passed by the District Forum, the State
    Commission, and the National Commission are set aside and the
    claims of the respondent are rejected. The appeals are accordingly,
    allowed as above.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.


       Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




5     (2005) 6 SCC 274