APHC010452052010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6998 of 2010 Bench Sr.No:- 14 [3483] Principal Chief Post Master General and others ...Petitioners Vs. P. Bhavani and another ...Respondents ********** Advocates for Petitioners : Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao Advocates for Respondents : Mr. K. Phani Raju CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 19th August 2025 P C : The present Writ Petition has been preferred against the order, dated 17.12.2009, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, whereby the appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Forum was allowed and a direction was issued to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till the date of realization with costs of Rs.1,000/-. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: 2 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.6998 of 2010 A complaint came to be filed by the wife of Late N. Premanandam, who while working as Sub-Post Master expired on 23.06.2005. During his lifetime, he had got his life insured for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and had paid his first premium of Rs.2,475/- on 08.05.2005. The premium was received in the field office of Postal Life Insurance (PLI) at Vizianagaram on the same day. A letter, dated 06.07.2005, was issued by the Deputy Divisional Manager, Postal Life Insurance, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad – petitioner No.2 herein, to the effect that the proposal, dated 08.05.2005, for insurance had been accepted on 09.05.2005 and that the risk of his life has been under written with effect from 09.05.2005. 3. The complainant in her capacity as the wife of the deceased made an application to the respondents for payment of the insured amount which is rejected by the PLI Authority stating that the sum claimed was not payable inasmuch as the proposer had expired on 23.06.2005 before the acceptance of the proposal of his PLI policy. 4. Being aggrieved of the rejection, a complaint came to be filed by the complainant before the District Consumer Forum which was rejected against which an appeal came to be preferred before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which came to be allowed by virtue of the judgment and order impugned in the present petition. 3 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.6998 of 2010 5. The State Commission held that the District Forum had committed an error in treating the date of letter i.e. 06.07.2005 as the date of the acceptance of the proposal by the PLI authorities. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. We were informed that in a similar case where there was a repudiation of a claim by the postal insurance authority which came under challenge in W.P.No.2024 of 2010. The said writ petition was allowed by virtue of judgment and order, dated 09.08.2018, which was not challenged by the authorities. In that case, the employee had paid the premium on 31.03.2003, who died on 28.05.2003 due to cardiac arrest whereas the policy book was received by the wife of the deceased one day after the death of the employee on 29.05.2003. 8. In this regard, it will be pertinent to reproduce the judgment of the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Raja Vasireddy1, which is as follows: “14. Though in certain human relationships silence to a proposal might convey acceptance but in the case of insurance proposal, silence does not denote consent and no binding contract arises until the person to whom an offer is made says or does something to signify his acceptance. Mere delay in giving an answer cannot be construed as an acceptance, as, prima facie, acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. The general rule is that the contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party 1 AIR 1984 SC 1014 4 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.6998 of 2010 to whom an offer has been made accepts it unconditionally and communicates his acceptance to the person making the offer. Whether the final acceptance is that of the assured or insurers, however, depends simply on the way in which negotiations for an insurance have progressed. See in this connection statement of law in MacGillivray and Parkington on Insurance Law, Seventh Edition page 94 paragraph 215.” 9. Testing the facts of the present case on the touch stone of the law as stated hereinabove, it can be seen that the premium was paid by the deceased husband of the complainant on 08.05.2005, which was received by the PLI, Vizianagaram, on the same day. 10. What is important here to note is the fact that the Deputy Divisional Manager, PLI, in his communication, dated 06.07.2005, specifically represented that the risk of the proposer’s life has been under written with effect from 09.05.2005. The delay in communicating the acceptance of the proposal although in terms of the judgment reproduced hereinabove does not convey acceptance yet the decision to underwrite the risk of the proposer with effect from 09.05.2005 only explains that the contract was given a binding effect between the parties with effect from 09.05.2005 itself and therefore notwithstanding the fact that the proposer had passed away on 23.06.2005 before the factum of acceptance of the proposal was communicated would be irrelevant. 11. Be that as it may, we find no merit in the present petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 5 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.6998 of 2010 Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs 6 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.6998 of 2010 366 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.P.No.6998 of 2010 Dt: 19.08.2025 kbs