BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.257O F 2018 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.No.100/2015D, ISTRICTC ONSUMER COMMISSION,K ARIMNAGAR Between:

Vorre Swapna, W/o.Late Parvathalu, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Housewife, R/0.3-55/A, Gokul Village, Kamanpur Mandal, Adilabad District.

Appellant/Complaina 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.Ambedkar Stadium Road, Karimnagar District.

Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: Sri V.Gourisankara Rao Counsel for the Respondents/Opp.Parties: Sri KRL Sharma QuOrAM: SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HONBLE PRESIDENT HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN...LADY MEMBER TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TrWENTY Two Order

1. This is an appeal filed U/s. 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 27.04.2018 of the District Consumer Commission, Karimnagar, made in CC.No.100/2015.

The Appellant is the Complainant and the Respondents are the Opposite Parties in CC.No.100/2015.

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

3. Briefly stated, the facts are:

The Complainant is the wife and nominee of late Parvathalu who during his life time obtained the following policies bearing Nos:

Policy No.

Sum Assured

682646984 Rs.1,00,000/-

807305347 Rs.2,00,000/-

807305345 Rs.1,00,000/-

807305346 Rs.1,00,000/

Unfortunately, the life assured died on 28.02.2014 and the wife being the nominee submitted her claim to ^the Opposite Party. Despite several requests, they failed to respond and neither did they repudiate the claim. Hence, the present complaint is filed against their deficiency in service.

4. The Opposite Parties filed their written version admitting to the fact that the life assured died on 28.02.2014 and premiums were received only upto 2-2005 and were since in a lapsed condition. Although the policy holder died only in the year 2014, the policies were not properly serviced and for faillure of remittance of premiums nothing is payable.

D. 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 Partyis not liable to pay the claim amount.

6. Before the District Forum, the Complainantfiled evidence affidavit and Ex.Al to A8 are marked. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Parties filed. Ex.B1 is 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 erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

The Forum below failed see in the written version, the Respondents/Opposite Parties have admitted that the ^policy bearing No.682646984 was issued in the year 1999 under the Salary Saving Scheme and the same was ⁱⁿ a lapsed condition for non-payment of premium ^{from March,2015,} whereas the policy holder died on 28.02.2014.

The Forum below failed to appreciate the well settled law that in the event of lapse in payment of monthly premium under Salary Saving Scheme, the claim amount is liable to be paid to the legal heirs/nominee of the life assured.

9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable