Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondents. Factual matrix are that insured had secured an Insurance policy of Rs.50,000/- from respondent-Corporation on 18.12.95 and had paid premium upto June, 1997. Since mode of payment of premium was half yearly and life assured was missing from 13.7.97 whose whereabouts were not known, premium due on 12/97 having not been paid policy had lapsed. After insured was missing due information was given to police on 13.09.97 and door of Civil Court too was knocked to secure a decree of civil death of insured for processing claim by Insurance Company. The suit filed before Civil Court was decreed on 24.01.2008 holding petitioner and their children to be legal heirs of deceased. Since particular date of death was not determined by Court, fora below rightly in my view determine date of death of the insured to be 17.9.2005 when civil suit was instituted. It was contended on behalf of petitioner that though insured was missing from 13.07.1997 no date of death was determined by Civil court in decree. Other contention was that in view of there being no trace or whereabouts of insured since 13.07.1997, Civil death of a person had to be taken from date of missing and this issue was misconstrued by fora below. After respondent-Corporation was moved by petitioner, relying on Rule 14 of Insurance Manual, which enjoins that where a person is reported missing, it is to be advised to claimant that life insured will be presumed to be dead after seven years or production of decree from court of law and in the meantime policy is to be kept enforce by making payment of premium regularly, it asked petitioner to secured decree from Civil Court and a civil court accordingly declared civil death of insured and her children to be legal heirs of deceased. An Insured to successfully maintain claimant for benefit under Insurance policy is to keep policy alive by punctual payment of premium until claim was made. Since insured had failed to adhere to payment scheduled and policy had lapsed, no benefit flowing from insurance could have been extended to petitioner. Not only the Insurance Company was informed belatedly but even when date of death is determined to be 17.09.2005, it was not before 10.11.2008, after lapse of more than three years that complaint was filed by petitioner widow. Fora below had taken pains to consider all the relevant issues involved and I find no good and sound reasons to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by them. Resultantly, revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER | | 
