BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:H YDERABAD.

FA.NO.613 OF 2018 AGAINST ORDERSI N CC.NO.2 5 OF 2015,D ISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION,K ARIMNAGAR Between:

Vasala Pochamma, M/o. Late Shankar, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.67-102, 1st Zone, Mandamarry, MandamarryMandal, Adilabad District.

..Appellant/Complainant And

1. Life Insurance Corporationof India, Manchirial Branch, Rep. by its Manager, Post Mancherial,A dilabad District.

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

Respondent/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/ComplainantM: /s.V.G ourisankaraR ao Counsel for the Respondents/Opp.Parties:

M/s.KRL Sharma QUORAM: SRI JUSTICE M.s.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT, HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN...LADYMEMBERR &

HON'BLE SRI K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER-JUDICIAL WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TwO *******

Order: (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon'ble Lady Member)

1. This is an appeal filed U/s. 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order dated 12.01.2021 of the District Consumer Commission, Karimnagar, made in CC.No.25/2015. The Appellant is the Complainant and the Respondents are the Opposite Parties in Cc.No.25/2015.

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

Brielly stated, the facts are, that the Complainant's son

3.

named Vasala Shankar had obtained several Life Insurance Policies during his lifetime from the Opposite Parties. The present complaint is filed for the policies bearing No.684574205 and 684579073. The said polices were obtained under the Salary Saving Scheme and the life assured died on 31.12.2010 upon which the Complainant being the nominee submitted all the requisite claim papers and requested the Opposite Parties to settle the claim. However, the Opposite Parties failed to respond and the Complainant who was entirely dependent on her son's earnings issued a legal notice dated 18.12.2014. Despite service of the notice, the Opposite Parties have neither paid the amount nor repudiated the claim. Hence, the present complaint is filed.

4. The Opposite Parties filed their written version admitting to the fact that the above said policies were issued under the Salary Saving Scheme on the life of late Vasala Shankar. The said policies were issued under the Salary Saving Scheme but were in lapse condition for non-payment of premiums. As per the policy conditions, since the policies were in a lapsed condition, nothing is payable to the Complainant.

5. They ^{have further} submitted that the life assured had signed an authorization letter before issuance of the policies admitting to make arrangements for remittance of premiums directly to the Corporation in the event the policy stood lapsed. The letter of authorization is the basis for entering into the contract and the policy bond evidences this. They claim that there has been no delay or deficiency in service on their part and that this Opposite Party is not liable pay the claim under the said policies.

6. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A7 marked on her behalf. Evidence affidavit o1 Opposite Parties filed. No documents are marked on their behalf.

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

8. 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 Forum below erred in dismissing the complaint on the groundsthat the complainti s barred by limitation.

The District Forum failed to appreciate the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in M/s.Murari Woolen Mills Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in

2005 (2) CPR 122 (NC).

The Forum below ought to have maintained consistency in the orders passed by it re