Revival on a false health declaration, and the paid-up value that survives the fall
Mr. Anil took a 25-year endowment policy on 15 January 2015 with a sum assured of ₹10,00,000 and an annual premium of ₹42,000. He paid six annual premiums up to January 2021 and then allowed the policy to lapse. In November 2023 he applied for revival, paid the three years' arrears of ₹1,26,000 plus late fee interest of ₹21,400, and signed the personal statement of health declaring that he had not been hospitalised or undergone any surgery since the last premium he had paid. In fact he had undergone coronary angioplasty with two stents implanted in September 2023. The insurer revived the policy without medical examination because the sum assured was below its medical threshold for revivals, so the declaration was the only underwriting input. Mr. Anil died of a heart attack on 18 March 2024. The insurer has repudiated, saying the revival was obtained by fraudulent suppression; the nominee argues that the death came after a valid revival and that the original policy was more than three years old.
1. Is a revival a separate contract or an extension of the original? How does that affect the three-year rule in Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938?
Read the worked answer
Revival does not create a new policy; it restores the original one, which is why the original sum assured, the date of commencement and the bonus history remain intact. But revival is granted on the strength of the revival application, the arrears and the personal statement of health, and it is that statement the insurer relies on when it later discovers a concealment.
After the 2015 amendment, Section 45 fixes the three-year period by reference to 'the date of issuance of the policy or the date of commencement of risk or the date of revival of the policy or the date of the rider, whichever is later'. The date of revival is therefore an express reference point. The clock for questioning the revival began in November 2023, not January 2015, so the nominee's argument that the policy was already beyond three years fails. The death in March 2024 is only four months after revival, well within the three-year window. The insurer may call the revival in question, but only on proof of fraud or material misstatement, and only after communicating the grounds and materials in writing.
2. On these facts, is repudiation of the revival sustainable? Identify the elements the insurer must prove and any weakness in its case.
Read the worked answer
The personal statement asked specifically about hospitalisation and surgery since the last premium. Two stents implanted in September 2023, two months before the declaration, is precisely what the question was aimed at. The answer was false, the fact was material to a life underwriter assessing a revivals file, and it was knowingly false because the insured had just undergone the procedure. The insurer had waived medical examination, so the declaration was the only underwriting input and the insurer could not have known the true position from any other source. The ingredients of Section 45, namely a false statement on a material matter made fraudulently, appear to be met.
The weaknesses are evidential and procedural. The insurer must produce the hospital records, the date of the procedure and the signed declaration together. It must show what it would have done on a truthful declaration, that is, declined revival or imposed a loading or exclusion. It must record reasons and communicate the grounds and materials in writing before repudiating. If it simply asserts fraud without that paper trail, the repudiation will be vulnerable before the Ombudsman or a consumer commission.
3. If the revival is set aside, what is payable, and how is the paid-up value computed? Assume no bonuses had vested and that no surrender or loan was taken.
Read the worked answer
If the revival fails, the policy stands lapsed from January 2021 and never came back into force. Because six full years' premiums had been paid, the policy had acquired a paid-up value and could not be forfeited; this is the non-forfeiture protection reflected in Section 43 and in the policy's own paid-up clause, which applies once at least three years' premiums have been paid.
Paid-up sum assured = sum assured × premiums paid ÷ total premiums = ₹10,00,000 × 6 ÷ 25 = ₹2,40,000. A paid-up policy is payable on death or at maturity, whichever is earlier, so on Mr. Anil's death the nominee receives ₹2,40,000 plus any bonuses vested before lapse; none are assumed here.
The revival deposit of ₹1,26,000 arrears plus ₹21,400 interest, ₹1,47,400 in all, must be returned, because it was paid for a revival that is being set aside. The total payable is therefore ₹2,40,000 + ₹1,47,400 = ₹3,87,400. The insurer cannot both keep the revival money and deny the revival; that is the practical limit on its freedom to repudiate.