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

FA.NO.551 OF 2017 AGAINST ORDERSsI N CC.No.183/2015, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, KARIMNAGAR Between:

Erumalla Ermalla iLaxmi, W/o.Late Chandraiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Housewife,R /0:2-89, Naringpur (Village),J aipur Mandal, Adilabad District.

Appellant/Complainant And

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India,.

Manchirial Branch, Rep. by its Manager, Post Mancherial, Adilabad District.

2. The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2-7-105, Jeevan Prakash, Dr.B.R.AmbedkarS tadium Road, Karimnagar District.

Respondents/0pposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: Sri V.Gourisankara Rao Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party: Sri SrinivasS.Rajan QUORAM: SRI JUsTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT, HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN..LADYM. EMBER.

THURSDAY,{THE,THIRTY 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.183/2015..

The Appellant is the Complainant.and the Respondents are the Opposite Parties in Cc.No. 183/2015.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as

2.

arrayed in the complaint.

3. Briely ^stated, the facts are:

The Complainant's husband obtained several Life Insurance Policies during his life time from the Opposite Parties under the Salary Saving Scheme. One policy,bearing No.684595928 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 policy bearing No. 684595928 was issued on 07.09.2010 for a sum assured of Rs.5 lakhs. The Life Assured dieéd on 13.10.2011 and the premiums under the said policy were not paid from April,2011. It is further submitted that the Life Assured had also signed on the Salary Saving Scheme authorization letter before issuing the pplicies and agreeing to make arrangements for 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 failed to discharge his liability, this Opposite Party is not liable to pay the claim amount.

5. Before the, Di_trict Forum, the Complainant filed. evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A5 marked on his behalf. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Parties filed. No documents marked on their behalf.

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

7. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed this appcal contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:

The Forum erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

The Forum below failed sce 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 needlessly denying this ^claim.

are

8. The Appellant/Complainant is the wife and nominee of the deceased who obtained several Life Insurance Policies under the Salary Saving Scheme. The policy holder died on 13.10.2011 and the policy bearing No.684595928 for a sum assured of Rs.5 lakhs is being denied by the Respondents/Opposite Parties stating that the policy is under lapsed condition.

9 The fact that the policy bearing No. 684595928 was issued on 07.09.2010 by the Respondents/Opposite Parties is not in