DISPUTES STATE cONSUMER BEFORE THE ^TELANGANA REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.552 OF 20117 CONSUMER DISTRICT AGAINST ORDERSI N CC.NO.312/2015, COMMISSION, KARIMNAGAR Between:.

Padma, W/o. Late Papaiah, Boina@Boini Aged about 47 ^{yéars, Occ: Housewife,} Narsingpoor, Shetpelli (V);

R/o.Q.No.C-153, Jaipur Mandal, ^Adilabad, [The Divisional Manager,]

Appellant/Complainant And

1: Life Insurance Corporation of India, ManchirialBranch, Rep. by its Manager, Post Mancherial, Adilabad District.

DivisionalOffice, The Life Insurance.Corporationof India, 2-7-105, Jeevan Prakash, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar{Stadium Road, KarimnagarDistrict ..Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: Sri V.Gourisankará Rao Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party: Sri Srinivas S.Rajan QUORAM: SRI JUSTICE M.s.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT, HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN..LADY MEMBER THURSDAY,jTHETHIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TWENTY Two ******

Order

1 This is an appeal filed U/s. 15 of Consumer Protection . Act,1986 against the order dated 25. 10.2017 of the District Consumer Commission-l, Hyderabad, made in CC.No.312/2015.

The Appellant is the Complainant and the Respondents are the Opposite Parties in CC.No.312/2015.

2. For the sake jof convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.

3 Briefly stated, 'the ^facts are:

The Complainànt's husband obtained several Life Insurance Policies during his ife time from the Opposite Parties under the Salary Saving Scheme. One policy bearing No.683813597 was not settled by the Opposite Parties despite several representations they repudiated the requests. Though they received the legal notice, they have neither paid the amount covered under the policy nor have they repudiated the claim. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking redressal.

4. The Opposite Parties filed their written version admitting to the fact that the pplicy bearing No. 683813597 was issued on 28.01.2004 for a sum assured of Rs.30,000/-. The Life Assured died on 26.06.2005 and the premiums under the said policy were not paid from March,2004. It is further submitted that the Life Assured had also signed on the Salary Saving Scheme authorization letter i before issuing the policies and agreeing to make arrangementsf or remittance of premiums directly to. the Corporation in the ,event of non-payment of premiums by the employer. Since the proposal form, medical certificate and authorization^letter are the basis for entering into the contract and the policy holder f(cid:5)iled to discharge his liability, this Opposite Party ^is not liable to pay the claim amount.

5. Before the Di_trict Forum, the Complainant filed evidençe affidavitand Ex.A1 to A5 marked on his behalf. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Parties filed. No documentsm arked on their behalf

6. The District Fqrum after hearing both sides and considering the material on record dismissed the complaintwith no order as to costs.

7. Aggrieved,by the said order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed. this appeal contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following The Porum erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

The Forum below failed see that the judgment of the Hon'ble Chattisgarh State Commission is not binding on the District Forum in the presence of various judgments rendered by the A.P.State Commission and Telangana State Commission.

While the Opposite Parties have settled other claims to the Complainant, they are needlessly denying this claim.

8. The Appellant/Complainant is the wife and nominee of the deceased who obtained several Life Insurancè Policies under the Salary Saving Scheme. The policy holder died on 26.06.2005 and the policy bearing No.683813597 for a sum assured of Rs.30,000/- is being denied by the Respondents/0pposite Parties stating that the policy is under lapsed condition.

9 The fact that the policy bearing No. 683813597 was issued on 28.01.2004 by the Respondents/Opposite Parties is not in di