BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.256O F 2018 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.N0.176OF 2015, DISTRICT CONSUMERCOMMISSION,KARIMNAGAR Between:

Erumalla Erumalla Laxmi, W/o.LateChandraiah, Aged about 48 years, Indian, Oc: Housewife, R/o.2-89, Narsingapur( Village), Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad District.

Appellant/Complainant And

1. Life Insurance Corporationo f India, Manchirial Branch, Rep. by its Manager, Post Mancherial, Adilabad District.

2. The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Life lnsurance 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 TWENTY TWo *******

Order

1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order dated 14.03.2018 of the District Consumer Commission, Karimnagar, made in CC.No.176/2015.

The Appellant is the Complainant and the Respondents are the Opposite Parties in CC.No.176/2015.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as

2.

arrayed in the complaint.

3. Briefly 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. The policies bearing ^{No.684593528,} 684015280 and 683377008 were 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 submitting that premiums under policy No. 684593528 was not paid from 04- 2011, policy No. 684015280 was not paid from 04-2005 and the policy No. 683377008 was not paid from 04-2011. The Life Assured died on 13.10.2011 and the premiums under the said policies 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.

5. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A7 marked on his behalf. Evidence afidavit of Opposite Parties filed. No documents marked on their behalf.

6. The District Forum after hearingboth 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 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 that the judgment of the Hon'ble ChattisgarhS tate 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,t hey are needlessly denying these claims.

8. 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 to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?

9. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

10. The Appellant/Complainant is the wife and nominee of the deceased who obtained several L