BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION:H YDERABADDIS. PUTES FA.NO.23 OF 20199 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.50 CONSUMER COMMISSION, O K A F R2I0M1N4A, DGIASTRR ICT Between:

Smt.NerellaM allamma, W/o.Late Rajaiah, Occu: House Age: 48 yrs, Hold, R/o.Q.No.495, 1st Zone, Mandamarry (P&%M), Adilabad District -504231. .Appellant/Complainant And

1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, ManchirialB ranch Office, Near APSRTC Bus Stand, Mancherial (P&M), Adilabad District - 504208 (P)

2. The Sr.Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Near Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Stadium Road, Karimnagar (P&M), Karimnagar District.

..Respondents/OppositPe arties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant:

M/s.K.Karunakar Counsel for the Respondents/Opp.Parties:

M/s.K.Venkatesh Gupta QUORAM: ^SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT, &

HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN..LADY MEMBER THURSDAY, ^THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO *******

Order

1. This is an appeal filed U/s. 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order dated 23.05.2018 of the District Consumer Commission, Karimnagar, made in Cc.No.50/2014.T he Appellant is the Complainant and the Respondente re the Opposite Parties in Cc.No.50/2014.

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

3. Briefly stated, the facts are:

The Complainant's husband had obtained LIC's Jeevan Saral with profits with DAB for a sum assured of Rs.1,25,000/-. The policy bearing No.684581628 under Salary Saving Scheme. The policy commenced on 28.03.2009 and the life assured gave an authorization letter to the Opposite Party No.1 for recovery of monthly premiums directly from his salary and accordingly deductions were made from 03/2009 by the employer of the life assured.

4. No notice was received regarding non-payment of premiums during the life time of the life assured. While the policy was in force, the life assured died on 19.01.2011 due to heart stroke andd ^the Complainant being ^the nominee submitted her claim but ^the Opposite Parties neither settled the death benefit nor repudiated her claim. 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

5. The Opposite Parties filed their written version submitting that premiums under policy No. 684581628 were received up to 06/2010 and the policy was under lapse condition since 07/2010. Since the premiums were not paid after that the policy did not acquire any paid up value and hence nothing is payable under the policy. The Life Assured died on 19.01.2011 and the premiums under the said policy were not paid. It is further submitted that the Life Assured had also signed on the Salary Saving Scheme authorization letter before issuing the policies 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.

6. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A8 are marked on her behalf. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Parties filed and Ex.B1 to B4 are marked on their behalf.

7. The District Forum after hearing both sides and considerins 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 sole ground of limitation without appreciating the facts and documents filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

.The Forum below failed to follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble