Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Premia for Rs.50,000/- is as under :

Age Policy Convertible Whole Term Police Life Life 5 yrs 6 yrs 7 yrs 35 Rs.50,000 Rs.912.5 897.5 325 327.5 332.5 It will, thus, be clear that the Term Policy is a demonstrably cheap and efficacious short term policy and help those badly in need of it.

From this material matrix, the question emerges whether the appellant is justified in law in restricting the term policy only to the specified class, namely, salaried persons in Government, quasi-Government or reputed commercial firms. The Preamble, the arch of the Constitution, assures socio- economic justice to all the Indian citizens in matters of equality of status and of opportunity with assurance to dignity of the individual. Article 14 provides equality before law and its equal protection. Article 19 assures freedoms with right to residence and settlement in any part of the country and Article 21 by receiving expansive interpretation of right to life extends to right to livelihood. Article 38 in the Chapter of Directive Principles enjoins the State to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting effective social order in which socio-economic justice shall inform all the institutions of the national life. It enjoins to eliminate inequality in status, to provide facilities and opportunities among the individuals and groups of the people living in any part of the country and engaged in any avocation. Article 39 assures to secure the right to livelihood, health and strength of workers, men and women and the children of tender age. The material resources of the community are required to be so distributed as best to subserve the common good. Social security has been assured under Article 41 and Article 47 imposes a positive duty on the State to raise the standard of living and to improve public health.

A Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983 (2) SCR 165 at p.185, held that pension ensures freedom from undeserved want. The basic framework of the Constitution is to provide a decent standard of living to the working people and especially provides security from cradle to grave. Every State action whenever taken must be directed and be so interpreted as to take society one step towards the goal of establishing a socialist welfare society. While examining the constitutional validity of legislative/administrative action, the touchstone of the Directive Principels of the State policy in the light of the Preamble provides yardstick to hold one way or the other. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 Supp(2) SCR 51, another Constitution Bench of this Court held that the right to life inculdes right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of living i.e. means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as part of constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live.

Interpreting Article 19(e) vis-a-vis Article 25(2) of the Universal Declaration of the Human Right and Article 7 of the International Convention of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) in C.E.S.C. Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose, (1992)1 SCC 441 at p.462 in para 30, held that the right to social justice is a fundamental right. Right to livelihood springs from the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. The health and strength of a worker is an integral facet of right to life. Right to human dignity, development of personality, social protection, right to rest and leisure are fundamental human rights to a common man. Right to life and dignity of person and status without means are cosmetic rights. Socio-economic rights are, therefore, basic aspirators for meaningful right to life. Right to social security and protection of the family are integral part of the right to life. Right to social and economic justice is a fundamental right". In paragraph 32, it was further held that "right to medical care and health for protection against sickness are fundamental rights to the workmen". On this aspect, there was no disagreement by the majority members. In Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India. Jt 1995(1) SC 637, it was unanimously held by a bench of three Judges that right to health to a worker is an integral facet of meaningful right to life and have not only a meaningful existance but also robust health and vigour without which worker would lead life of misery. Lack of health denudes his livelihood. Compelling economic necessity to work in an industry exposed to health hazards due to indigence to bread-winning to himself and his dependents, should not be at the cost of the health and vigour of the workman. Facilities and opportunities, as enjoined in Article 38, should be provided to protect the health of the workman. Right to human dignity, development of personality, social protection are fundamental rights to the workmen. Medical facilities to protect the health of the workers are fundamental rights to workmen. It was, therefore, held that "the right to health, medical aid and to protect the health and the vigour of a worker while in service or post retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48-A of the Constitution of India and fundamental human right to make the life of workmen meaningful and purposeful with dignity of persons". In Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa, 1993 supp (4) SCC 100 at 105, the same view was stated. Security against sickness and disablement is fundamental right under Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7(b) of international Convention of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and under Articles 39(e), 38 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Employees State Insurance Act seeks to provide seccour to maintain health of an injured workman and the interpretation should be so given as to give effect to right to medical benefit which is a fundamental right to the workman. In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde (C.A.No.952/77) on February 22, 1995, this Court held that right to economic empowerment to the poor, disadvantaged tribes and depressed and oppressed Dalits, is a fundamental right to make their right to life and dignity of person meaningful and worth living. It was also held that socio-economic democracy is sine qua non to make political democracy, a truly participatory democracy and a truism for unity and integrity of Bharat.

It would thus be well settled law that the Preamble Chapter of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles accord right to livelihood as a meaningful life, social security and disablement benefits are integral schemes of socio-economic justice to the people in particular to the middle class and lower middle class and all offendable people. Life insurance coverage is against disablement or in the event of death of the insured economic support for the dependents, social security to livelihood to the insured or the dependents. The appropriate life insurance policy within the paying capacity and means of the insured to pay premia is one of thesocial security measures envisaged under the Constitution to make right to life meaningful, worth living and right to livelihood a means for sustenance.