This case has been filed as an appeal under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 11.07.2011 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as tate Commission, vide which the first appeal filed by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) against the order dated 22.08.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur was ordered to be accepted and the order passed by the District Forum in Consumer Complainant No. 258 of 2006, accepting the complaint was set aside. Although, this case has been filed as an appeal under Section 21 of the Act, yet it is being treated and decided as revision petition, because second appeal is not admissible in cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The main issue in the present case revolves around the fact that the insured person went missing in the year 2003 and has not been heard of till today. After he went missing, the policy, in question, lapsed for non-payment of premium by the due date. The kith and kin of the insured deposited the requisite premium, but after a lapse of about one year from the due date. The insurance company says that the policy can be revived only if medical reports are submitted along with the premium being deposited by the close relatives. The said reports cannot be submitted since the person has been missing till date. The issue, therefore, arises whether the lapse of the policy is a ait accompali or the Insurance Company can relax the period for payment of premium instalment by about one year, given the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Naresh Kumar Chhibber, father of the complainant had purchased an insurance policy from the respondent-LIC, commencing from 28.03.2000. At the time of filing the complaint, the petitioner Sahil Chhibber was a minor and the complaint was filed through his mother and natural guardian. It has been stated that the said Naresh Kumar has been missing since 20.09.2003 and a Daily Diary Report (DDR) No. 21 dated 24.09.2003 was got recorded in Police Station, Ferozepur Cantt. He has not been heard till now and since he was missing, he could not deposit the instalments of the premium in time. On behalf of Naresh Kumar, his brother Suresh Kumar tried to deposit the instalment of the premium due, to the tune of Rs. 21,222/- vide cheque No. 30.03.2006, but it was returned by the opposite party on 17.04.2006, stating that some medical tests on the insured were required to be done, before the revival of the policy. A consumer complaint was therefore filed against the respondent, claiming relief that the said policy may be revived and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- may be given as compensation on account of mental torture and Rs. 6,000/- as litigation expenses. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, accepted the complaint with Rs. 1,000/- as costs and directed the respondent/opposite party to accept the due premium from the petitioner and to revive the policy of the insured. However, an appeal against the order of the District Forum was accepted by the State Commission, the order of the District Forum was set aside and complaint was dismissed. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 4. At the time of arguments before us, Suresh Kumar Chhibber, brother of the deceased argued in person and stated that in the absence of his brother, he sent a cheque of Rs. 21,222/- to the Branch Office of the LIC on 20.03.2006, but the same was returned through registered letter by the LIC on 17.04.2006, saying that the policy stood lapsed since March, 2005 and for revival of the policy, Form No. 680 along with ECG report etc., and fresh cheque of Rs. 22,363/- was required to be submitted. Suresh Kumar sent cheque of Rs. 21,363/- on 26.04.2006 along with a copy of the police report, intimating the LIC that since Naresh Kumar was missing since September, 2003, the requisite documents could not be submitted. However, the LIC returned the said cheque on 06.05.2006, saying that the revival of policy was not possible till the documents are submitted. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that according to Rule 14 of the Insurance Manual, it is to be advised to the claimant that the insured will be presumed to be dead after seven years or production of decree from a Court of law and in the meantime, the policy is to be kept in force by making payment of premium regularly. In the present case, no such advice was given by the LIC to the kith and kin of Naresh Kumar. Shri Suresh Kumar further invited our attention to a letter sent by the LIC addressed to Naresh Kumar about some nstalment Revival Scheme saying that there was a special provision to spread arrears to next two policy years. The LIC vide their letter dated 28.12.2009 had invited the attention of the people towards this Scheme. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the reply of the respondent filed in response to the complaint and stated that as per the terms and conditions, the policy could not be revived in the present case, because the necessary formalities including ECG and FBS tests could not be completed, due to the life assured being missing. He further stated that the lapsed policy can be revived during the life time of the person concerned within a period of five years form the date of the first unpaid premium on submission of proof of continuation to the satisfaction of the Corporation. The learned counsel also invited our attention to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chairman, LIC of India Vs. A. Narasamma as reported in I (1992) CPJ 128 (NC) in support of his arguments. 6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The fact that the policy holder Naresh Kumar Chhibber has been missing since 20.09.2003 and has not been heard till today has not been denied by the respondent. On a query from the Court, it was revealed by the petitioner that a case has been filed in Civil Court for obtaining a decree, declaring him to be dead. Further, the main contention made by the petitioner is that the premium could not be paid in time, because Naresh Kumar went missing and when they tried to deposit the premium after lapse of about one year, the respondent refused to revive the policy, taking the plea that certain documents including medical tests etc., were required before reviving the policy. It is clear from the record that in so far as the case of a missing person is concerned, the terms and conditions of the policy do not make any specific provision, governing the case in question. 7. Further, Rule 14 of the Insurance Manual states as follows: here a person is reported missing, it is to be advised to the claimant that the insured will be presumed to be dead after seven years or production of decree from the court of law and in the meantime policy is to be kept in force by making payment of premium regularly. 8. In this case, it is clear that no advice as contemplated under the said Rule has been furnished to the petitioners. Moreover, the respondent says that the policy lapsed in March, 2005. The case of the petitioner is that the premium could not be deposited in time, because Naresh Kumar was missing. However, they tried to deposit the premium in March, 2006, i.e. after a period of about one year, but the respondent refused to accept the same. In our opinion, in such a case, the respondent cannot take shelter under the strict etter of wordthat till the medical reports are made available, the policy cannot be revived. It is a matter of common sense that since the person is missing, there is no question of medical reports being made available. Moreover, there is a provision that the policy can be revived within a period of five years from the due date of the first unpaid premium and before the date of maturity and before the death of the concerned person. In the present case, the LIC cannot presume that the person has already died, till there is a proper order from the Court. In the light of these facts, refusal to revive the policy because premium was paid late just by one year shall amount to a grave injustice to the petitioners. It has also been brought on record that the LIC had issued an Instalment Revival Scheme giving certain concessions to the policy holders where the policy had lapsed due to non-payment of premium. 9. In the light of the facts stated above, we deem it appropriate to direct the LIC to find out if there is any provision available to them under which the period of late payment of premium by the brother of the missing person could be regularised by making relaxation in the relevant rules etc. In case such a clause is available LIC may consider the case and take appropriate decision. In case it is not possible to give suitable relaxation, the policy shall stand lapsed as a ait accompali With these observations, this revision petition is allowed. The orders passed by State Commission and District Forum are set aside and respondent LIC is directed to proceed as observed above within a reasonable time, preferably within a period of three months. No order is being passed as to costs.