Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum. Husband of the complainant/respondent obtained a life insurance policy for a sum of Rs.11 Lacs from the petitioner on 09.11.2005. The insured was required to pay a premium of Rs.20,000/- per year. The premium for the first two years was paid. -2- For the 3rd year, the premium became due on 03.11.2007. Insured sent a Demand Draft of Rs.30,575/- to the petitioner on 30.11.2007, i.e. within 30 days of the grace period. Petitioner issued a receipt to the respondent dated 03.01.2008. Insured, husband of the complainant/respondent died on 23.12.2007 due to myocardial infraction. Respondent lodged the claim with the petitioner with all requisite documents, which was repudiated on the ground that at the time of death of the insured, the policy was lying in a lapsed condition. Being aggrieved, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the insured amount of Rs.11 Lacs to the respondent along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization. Rs.1,000/- were awarded by way of costs. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the policy was lying in a lapsed condition and, therefore, no benefits were payable by the -3- petitioner to the respondent. I do not find any substance in this submission. The premium for the 3rd year could be paid on or before 03.11.2007. Admittedly, the insured is given 30 days as ‘Grace period’ to pay the amount. The respondent within those 30 days got a Draft prepared for Rs.30,575/- which was in excess of the premium amount which was accepted by the petitioner. Insured died on 23.12.2007. The draft was not got prepared by the insured with a malafide intention. The insured had got the Draft prepared well within the grace period and much before his death. Once the premium is paid within the grace period, then the plea taken by the counsel for the petitioner that the policy was lying in a lapsed condition, cannot be accepted. Counsel for the petitioner, then, contends that the Draft was got prepared by Mr. A. S. Nayak on behalf of the insured; since the petitioner did not have any privity of contract with Mr. A. S. Nayak, the payment made by Mr. A. S. Nayak on behalf of the insured was not a payment. The petitioner did not have any privity of contract with Mr.A. S. Nayak and that Mr. A. S. Nayak had no insurable interest. I -4- do not find any substance in this submission as well. The petitioner is concerned with the premium, which was paid to it within the grace period. The premium was paid on behalf of the insured who had the insurable interest and not in the name of Mr. A. S. Nayak. The arrangement between the insured and Mr. A. S. Nayak is neither the concern of the petitioner nor of this court. Petitioner is concerned with the premium, which was paid by him well within time. I do not find substance in either of the two submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the fora below. Dismissed. | 
