Skip to main content

Insurance Act, 1938

Insurance Act, 1938

In insurance law, the concepts of mode of payments, days of grace, forfeiture, and return of premium are critical aspects that govern the relationship between the insurer and the insured. Below, I explain each concept in detail, with examples and references to insurance law principles, particularly focusing on general practices as seen in jurisdictions like India (e.g., under the Insurance Act, 1938) and common law principles.

1. Mode of PaymentsDefinition:

  • The mode of payment refers to the method and frequency by which the insured pays the insurance premium to the insurer to keep the policy active. Premiums are the consideration for the insurance contract, and their timely payment is essential for the policy to remain in force.
  • Methods: Premiums can be paid through various methods, such as:
  1. Cash
  2. Cheque
  3. Bank draft
  4. Online payments (credit/debit cards, net banking, UPI, etc.)
  5. Direct debit or auto-debit from a bank account
  6. Electronic wallets or mobile apps
  • FrequencyPremiums can be paid:
  1. Annually
  2. Semi-annually
  3. Quarterly
  4. Monthly
  5. Single premium (one-time payment for the entire policy term, common in some life insurance policies)
  • The mode and frequency are agreed upon at the inception of the policy and are specified in the policy document.
  • Insurers may charge additional fees for certain payment modes (e.g., monthly payments may incur a small surcharge due to administrative costs).
  • Non-payment or delayed payment may lead to policy lapse or forfeiture, subject to the terms of the policy and applicable laws.
Legal Reference:
  • Under Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 (India), no risk is assumed by the insurer unless the premium is received in advance or guaranteed to be paid. 
  • This emphasizes the importance of the mode and timeliness of premium payments.The principle of utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei) in insurance contracts requires the insured to adhere to the agreed payment terms.
Example:Mr. A purchases a life insurance policy with an annual premium of $1,200. The policy allows payment via monthly installments of $100 through auto-debit from his bank account. Mr. A chooses this mode for convenience. If his bank account has insufficient funds for two consecutive months, the insurer may notify him of a potential lapse, subject to the days of grace (explained below).

2. Days of Grace Definition: The days of grace refer to a specified period after the premium due date during which the insured can pay the overdue premium without the policy lapsing. During this period, the policy remains in force, and the insurer is still liable to cover any claims that arise.
Details:The grace period is typically provided in life insurance policies but may also apply to other types of insurance (e.g., health or general insurance) depending on the policy terms.The standard grace period is usually:
  • 30 days for policies with annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premium payments.
  • 15 days for policies with monthly premium payments.
  • If the premium is not paid within the grace period, the policy may lapse or become voidable at the insurer’s discretion, subject to policy terms and applicable regulations.
  • If a claim arises during the grace period (e.g., death of the insured in a life insurance policy), the insurer is obligated to honor the claim, but the overdue premium may be deducted from the claim amount.
  • The grace period is a contractual provision and may vary by insurer or policy type. It is designed to provide flexibility to policyholders and prevent immediate forfeiture.
Legal Reference:
  • In India, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) mandates grace periods for life insurance policies to protect policyholders from immediate policy lapse (IRDAI (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2017)
  • Common law principles also recognize the grace period as a standard feature to balance the interests of the insurer and insured.
Example:Ms. B has a life insurance policy with a quarterly premium due on January 1, 2025. The policy provides a 30-day grace period. If Ms. B fails to pay by January 1, she has until January 31, 2025, to make the payment. If she pays on January 20, the policy remains active. If she dies on January 15 and the premium is unpaid, the insurer will pay the death benefit but deduct the overdue premium.

3. Forfeiture Definition: Forfeiture refers to the termination or lapse of an insurance policy due to non-payment of premiums within the stipulated time, including the grace period. Upon forfeiture, the policyholder loses the benefits of the policy, and the insurer is no longer liable to cover any claims.
Details:Forfeiture typically occurs when the insured fails to pay the premium by the end of the grace period.
  • The consequences of forfeiture depend on the type of policy:
  1. In life insurance, a lapsed policy may still have a surrender value or paid-up value if premiums were paid for a certain period (e.g., 2-3 years, depending on policy terms).
  2. In general insurance (e.g., motor or property insurance), forfeiture usually results in complete termination of coverage.
  • Some policies allow revival of a lapsed policy within a specified period (e.g., 2-5 years in life insurance), subject to payment of overdue premiums, interest, and proof of insurability (e.g., medical check-up).
  • Forfeiture clauses are strictly enforced to ensure the insurer’s financial stability, as premiums fund claim payments.
Legal Reference:
  • Section 50 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (India) allows insurers to include forfeiture clauses in policies, but these must be clearly communicated to the policyholder.
  • The principle of material breach in contract law applies, where non-payment of premiums constitutes a breach of the insurance contract, justifying forfeiture.
Example:Mr. C has a term life insurance policy with an annual premium due on March 1, 2025. He fails to pay by March 1 and does not pay within the 30-day grace period (by March 31). The policy lapses on April 1, and Mr. C loses coverage. If he applies for revival in June 2025, the insurer may require him to pay all overdue premiums with interest and provide a health declaration.
4. Return of Premium Definition: Return of premium refers to the refund of premiums paid by the insured under certain circumstances where the insurance contract is terminated, voided, or not fully utilized. The right to a refund depends on the policy terms, the reason for termination, and applicable laws.

Details:Circumstances for Return of Premium:
  • Policy Cancellation: If the policyholder cancels the policy during a free-look period (usually 15-30 days from policy receipt), the insurer refunds the premium after deducting administrative costs and pro-rata charges for coverage provided.
  • Non-Commencement of Risk: If the insurer never assumes risk (e.g., due to rejection of the proposal after premium payment), the premium is refunded in full or with minimal deductions.
  • Void Contract: If the insurance contract is void ab initio (e.g., due to misrepresentation or fraud by the insured), the premium may or may not be refunded, depending on the circumstances.
  • Surrender of Policy: In life insurance, if the policyholder surrenders the policy after a minimum premium payment period, they may receive a surrender value, which is a portion of the premiums paid, adjusted for expenses and investment returns.
  • Overpayment: If the insured pays more than the required premium, the excess is refunded.
  • Non-Returnable Cases:
  1. If the policy lapses due to non-payment of premiums, no refund is typically provided unless the policy has a surrender value.
  2. If the contract is terminated due to fraud or material misrepresentation by the insured, the insurer may retain the premium.
The calculation of the refund depends on policy terms, such as whether the policy is a term plan, endowment plan, or general insurance policy.

Legal Reference:
  • Section 65 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (India) governs the free-look period, allowing policyholders to return the policy and claim a refund within a specified time.
  • Common law principles dictate that premiums are not refundable if the insurer was "on risk" during the policy period, unless specified otherwise in the contract.
  • IRDAI regulations mandate clear disclosure of refund policies in the policy document.
Example:Ms. D purchases a health insurance policy and pays an annual premium of $500 on January 1, 2025. During the 15-day free-look period, she reviews the policy and decides it does not meet her needs. She cancels it on January 10. The insurer refunds $475, deducting $25 for administrative costs and pro-rata coverage for 10 days. However, if Ms. D’s policy lapses after six months due to non-payment, she receives no refund unless the policy has a surrender value.

Interconnection of Concepts 
  • The mode of payment affects the likelihood of timely premium payments, which in turn influences whether the days of grace are invoked.
  • Failure to pay within the grace period leads to forfeiture, resulting in loss of coverage and potential loss of premiums paid.
  • Return of premium is an exception, applicable in specific cases like cancellation during the free-look period or non-commencement of risk, but not typically in forfeiture scenarios unless a surrender value exists.
Practical Considerations 
  • policy holders should carefully review the policy document for terms related to payment modes, grace periods, forfeiture clauses, and refund policies.Insurers must communicate these terms clearly to comply with principles of transparency and fairness, as mandated by regulations like those of the IRDAI.
  • In disputes, courts or insurance ombudsmen may intervene to ensure fair treatment, especially if the insurer’s forfeiture or non-refunded premium is deemed unreasonable.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Theories of Punishment

Theories of Punishment Punishment in law serves multiple purposes, and the rationale behind these punishments can be understood through different theories of punishment. These theories form the foundation for justifying punishment and help in shaping law s and sentencing policies. Here’s a detailed explanation of each theory with examples: 1. Deterrent Theory The deterrent theory focuses on preventing crime by imposing severe punishments to create fear among people. The idea is that potential offenders will refrain from committing crimes if they fear punishment. Example : The death penalty or long-term imprisonment for serious offenses like murder or terrorism acts as a deterrent for those considering committing such crimes. 2. Retributive Theory This theory is based on the principle of "an eye for an eye" or giving the offender what they deserve. It focuses on vengeance or moral satisfaction, ensuring the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. The goal is not to...

Companies act ,2013

Companies Act, 2013 Meaning and Nature of a Company with Emphasis on its Advantages 1. Meaning of a Company : A company is a legal entity formed by a group of individuals to engage in and operate a business commercial or industrial enterprise. It is governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in India. According to Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013, "Company means a company incorporated under this Act or under any previous company law." Lord Justice Lindley : "A company is an association of many persons who contribute money or money's worth to a common stock and employ it for a common purpose. The common stock so contributed is denoted in money and is the capital of the company." A company is an artificial person created by law. It has a separate legal identity distinct from its members. It can enter into contracts, own property, sue, and be sued in its own name. 2. Nature of a Company : The nature of a company can be understood through its key ...

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915). Section 53 - Fradulent transfer

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915).  This citation indicates that the case was decided by the Privy Council (P.C.) in 1915, and reported in volume 43 of the Indian Appeals (I.A.), starting from page 151.  The case of Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another was a dispute over the validity of two conveyances of land executed by a debtor, Kishun Benode, to his relatives, Kamta Prashad and Hakim Lal, on 2nd September 1901. The plaintiff, Musahar Sahu, was a creditor of Kishun Benode who had obtained a judgment against him on 5th December 1901. The plaintiff sought to set aside the conveyances on the ground that they were made with intent to defeat or delay his claim, under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The courts gave different verdicts on the two conveyances. The first conveyance, in favour of Kamta Prashad, was set aside by the Subordinate Judge and the High Court, as it was found to be without consi...