Madras High Court
The Zonal Manager vs Mrs.R.Seethammal on 15 July, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.A.No.408 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.No.408 of 2024
1. The Zonal Manager,
LIC of India,
Zonal Office, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2. The Senior Divisional Manager,
LIC of India,
India Life Building, Divisional Office,
1543/44, Trichy Road,
Coimbatore-641 018.
3. The Senior Branch Manager,
LIC of India,
Vella Pilliaiyar Koil Street,
Bhavani. ... Appellants/Respondents
-vs-
1. Mrs.R.Seethammal
2. Mr.Suganthan
3. Mrs.Mekala ... Respondents/Petitioners
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, seeking
to set aside the order dated 12.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.25173 of 2017.
For Appellants : Mr.R.S.Anandan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Arokia Satheesh
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:26:02 pm )
W.A.No.408 of 2024
J UD G M E N T
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.)
A challenge in the Writ Appeal is to the order dated
12.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.25173 of 2017, by which, the Writ Petition
was allowed, with a direction to the respondents therein to settle the eligible
benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme.
2. The case of the appellants is the husband of the 1st
petitioner, who was an LIC Agent died on 18.04.2013 and he was a member
of the Group Insurance Scheme, which was introduced for the welfare of
its own Agents. The eligibility condition of the policy was between 18 years
to 65 years, insofar as the confirmed agent is concerned. As the deceased
Agent crossed the age of 65 years well before his death, the respondents are
not eligible for the benefits out of the policy and there is no possibility to
relax the terms and conditions of the Policy for any individual. Though
learned Single Judge held that the deceased Agent has crossed the age of
65, still he falls within the benefit of the LIC, which is contradictory. It is
further case of the appellants that the consumer complaint filed before the
District Consumer Forum, Erode was dismissed at the condone delay stage
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:26:02 pm )
W.A.No.408 of 2024
and the respondents have not preferred any appeal against the rejection
order and filed the Writ Petition, which is not at all maintainable. Though
same was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the reply was
not considered.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the
rights of the respondents cannot be deprived on the erroneous calculation of
the age of the deceased Agent. The Group Insurance Scheme introduced by
the LIC is for betterment of its Agents. When the LIC prescribed a
mechanism for calculation of the age and the deceased Agent falls within its
ambit, the denial of benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme payable to
the deceased Agent is illegal. Therefore, learned Single Judge rightly held
that the respondents are eligible for the benefits payable to the deceased
Agent.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material documents available on record.
5. The husband of the 1st petitioner worked as an LIC Agent
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:26:02 pm )
W.A.No.408 of 2024
and died on 18.04.2023 on account of heart ailment. The premium for the
Group Insurance Scheme was duly deducted annually from the account of
the deceased Agent and last such deduction was on 01.09.2012 for the
period 2012 to 2013. After the demise, the wife of the deceased Agent
approached the LIC for settlement of the amount accrued in the Group
Insurance Scheme. The request for disbursement of the amount was
negatived by the appellants, stating that since the deceased Agent already
crossed the age of 65, the benefits cannot be granted to the respondents.
6. Before the learned Single Judge, it was argued by the LIC
that after the death of the Agent, the 1st petitioner was appointed as an LIC
Agent in the place of her husband and the commission payable to her
deceased husband has been paid without delay. As such, the request for
disbursement of the amount accrued under the Group Insurance Scheme
cannot be acceded to, as the terms and conditions cannot be relaxed for each
and every individual.
7. According to the respondents, as per the Scheme modified
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:26:02 pm )
W.A.No.408 of 2024
from time to time, confirmed Agents, who fall between 18 years and 65
years would be granted the benefit of Group Insurance Scheme. The
deceased Agent was born on 12.08.1947 and he died on 18.04.2013. The
deceased Agent was the member of Group Insurance Policy till 12.08.2012
and therefore, his age upto 01.09.2012 has been calculated for reckoning the
entitlement age of the deceased Agent. If the age of the deceased Agent as
on 01.09.2012 is calculated based on the LIC Age calculator, it clearly
displays that the deceased Agent has completed 65 years 0 Month 20 days.
It further displays that the age should be rounded off to 65 for reckoning the
age for LIC plan for the reason that not even a month has been completed
after completing 65 years of age. When the age of a person runs between 0
month to 5 months, the age should be calculated as if the person has not
completed 65 years of age in terms of their own mechanism derived for
calculation of the age for LIC. Therefore, learned Single Judge rightly
directed the LIC to settle the benefits of the deceased Agent to the
respondents herein and we find no infirmity in the order of the learned
Single Judge.
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:26:02 pm ) W.A.No.408 of 2024 M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
8. The LIC is a welfare organization and the appellants should be liberal in extending the benefits to its Policy Holders without standing on strict technicalities. When the family members of the deceased Agent of LIC are made to run from pillar to post to receive the legally entitled benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme, the Public will lose their confidence in the LIC and would be reluctant to opt for LIC policies.
9. For the foregoing discussions and observations, finding no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(J.N.B.J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
15.07.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
W.A.No.408 of 2024
6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:26:02 pm )