LIC OF INDIA Vs. CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted Delay condoned.

(2.) THE appeal and cross appeal arise from the Division Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court dated 31/01/1994 in Spl. Civil Application No. 2614 of 1980. On 25/08/1980 one Prof. Manubhai Shah Executive trustee of Respondent No. 1 and Mr. D. N. Dalal sought policies under Table 58. Similarly in December,1978 Respondent Nos 2 to 4 sought similar policies for convertible term insurance plans for different amounts. In September, 1980 Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 agents of the appellants when presented proposals to the LIC under Table 58 on behalf of individual respondents and promised to cover under Table 58 other 9 crores uninsured households, the LIC turned them down. Consequently after issuance of a notice through counsel on 14/09/1980, the respondents filed the above writ petition.THE conditions imposed and denial to accept policies sought under Table 58 were assailed arbitrary, discriminatory, violating Articles 14,19 (1) (g) and right to life in Article 21 of the Constitution. THE High Court while upholding that prescription of conditions, for 1st class lives as eligibility and other criteria laid down in the policy under Table 58 are neither unjust nor arbitrary, declared a part of the conditions, namely, "Further, proposals for assurance under the plan will be entertained only from persons in Government or Quasi Government organisation or a reputed commercial firm which can furnish details of leave taken during the preceding year under Table 58" as subversive of equality and, therefore, constitutionally invalid. Accordingly, it was struck down. THE Corporation filed the appeal against the portion that was struck down and the respondents filed the cross appeal against the finding that went against them.

(3.) SHRI Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the respondents resisted these contentions on the anvil of Article 25 of the Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7 of the International Convant on Economic and social Rights and in particular on the provisions of part III and the Directive principles of the Constitution which assure livelihood. This Court interpreted the world "life" under Article 21 broadly so as to render them socio-economic justice. Policy under Table 58 is cheaper. Having issued the policy, the appellant has to formulate its scheme in such a way that it is not inconsistent with the egalitarian social order which the Constitution seeks to achieve and the Court must be given effect to them. The interpretation sought to put up by the LIC depletes practical content of human rights in Part IV. Initially females were excluded to have insurance policy. By sustained public pressure, females were made eligible to have policy including term policy. Age was extended from 45 to 50 years. Similarly the respondent through is doing life insurance business, its policies must be conformity with the rights in Parts III and IV of the Constitution. It has no power to impose any unconstitutional conditions in the contract, no classification much less valid classification has ben made between salaried employees in Government, Semi-Government, organised sectors or reputed commercial organisations self-employed or unorganised sectors. The term insurance policy being cheaper premium helps large segments of poor and lower middle class persons. Sezhivan Committee on improvement of Insurance, the LIC recommended popularisation in urban and rural areas policies under Table 58. The whole life or endowment policies are not easily accessible to the poorer segments of the society. Only term insurance under Table 58 policy is more attractive and easily accessible to those segments of the society. Imposition of conditions including the one struck down by the High Court are, therefore, unconstitutional and impermissible.