JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Late Sarju Manubhai Indrekar, husband of the complainant, obtained a life insurance policy for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- on 06-07-2005, paying a sum of Rs.3,813/- as the premium. The premium was payable at the interval of six months. The next due date for payment of the premium was 06-01-2006 and there was a grace period of 30 days for making payment of the premium. However, the premium which was due on 06-01-2006 was not paid either on the due date or within the grace period. The aforesaid installment of premium was eventually paid on 22-04-2006 along with interest and reinstatement charges. The next premium fell due on 06-07-2006. The said premium was also not paid either on the due date or within the permissible grace period. The insured, however, made payment of Rs.3,813/- along with interest and reinstatement charges on 08-01-2007. The next installment of premium fell due on 08-01-2007 which also was not paid either on the due date or within the grace period and came to be paid only on 22-02-2007 along with interest and reinstatement charges. The insured expired on 05-04-2007. The complainant thereupon lodged a claim with the petitioner-insurance company for making payment to her in terms of the policy, she being his nominee. However, the petitioner-insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy had lapsed due to non-payment of premium and refunded a sum of Rs.3,785/- to the nominee of the insured on 31-01-2008 i.e. more than nine months after the death of the insured. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant approached the Ahmedabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, the District Forum). The said forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the insured had failed to pay the premium within the grace period and that had led to the policy getting lapsed. 2. Being aggrieved from dismissal of her complaint, the widow of the insured approached the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission) by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 21-11-2013, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the complainant. Being aggrieved from the appeal of the complainant having been allowed the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the insured was a persistent defaulter since he never paid the premium either on the due date or within the grace period and, therefore, the policy had lapsed. As regards the payment of premium due on 06-01-2007, he submits that the said payment was later refunded to the nominee of the insured and, therefore, does not bind the insurance company. 4. It has been noted by the State Commission, the installments of premium which fell due on 06-01-2006 and 06-07-2006 were accepted by the insurance company along with interest and reinstatement charges. It is further noted by the State Commission that there was an admission that the premium due on 06-01-2007 was also accepted on 22-02-2007 along with interest and reinstatement charges. This factual position has not been disputed before us. Having accepted the premium along with the interest and reinstatement charges it was not open to the insurance company to refund the amount of the last paid premium, after the death of the insured. On acceptance of the premium along with interest and reinstatement charges the policy stood revived and the contract between the parties became alive. Consequently, the petitioner-company was under a contractual obligation to make payment in terms of the policy on death of the insured on 05-04-2007. Therefore, we find no merit in the revision petition and for the reasons stated hereinabove the same is hereby dismissed.