BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 408 OF 2022 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.11/2021 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, MAHABUBNAGAR Between:

Smt. A.Neelamma, W/o Late A.Galaiah, Mother of Late Aedla Prabhakar, Aged 56 years, Occ.: Housewife, R/o H.No.2-54, Parvathapur Village, Kondurg Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

…….Appellant/Complainant And:

The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Limited, Jadcherla Branch Office, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District.

……..Respondent/Opposite Party Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s.P.Lakshman Goud Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party : Sri Srinivas Karra QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

MONDAY, THE 02 ^nd DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE **********

Order : PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL

1. The appeal is filed by the complainant, aggrieved by the dismissal order of District Consumer Commission, Mahabubnagar, dated 30.03.2022 in CC 11/2021.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant son i.e. Aedla Prabhakar, has obtained a policy during his life time, vide No.649178430 with the opposite party on 28.10.2016 for Rs.22,062/- yearly premium w.e.f. 31.10.2016; that he has to pay an amount of Rs.22,712/- with accrued taxes, as such he has paid the first installment of Rs.23,563/- on

31.10.2016 and 2^nd installment on 21.10.2017; that due to some unavoidable circumstances, failed to pay the yearly policy, but later, with late fee he has paid the amount on 20.03.2018, thus, the policy was in force as on the date of 31.10.2019;

3. That the complainant’s son committed suicide due to some rumor’s made by some of their villagers and the FIR was registered vide No.70/2018 and trail was conducted by the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, vide PRC No.18/2018; that the complainant being a nominee has informed the opposite party about the incident and submitted for claim, in reply, the opposite party sent a letter dated 19.11.2019 stating that “the claim rejected by refunding 80% of the premium paid. Suicide clause is applicable for the policy, as the premium paid after days of grace”. As per policy conditions in Part-E, in column No.3, “if the life assured commits suicide at any time within 12 months from the date of the commencement of policy, the Corporation will not entertain any claim and entitled to receive 80% of the premiums paid”, but, here the complainant’s son i.e. policy holder died after 22 months from the commencement of policy, so, the above said condition is not applicable to the complainant’s son and thus, he is entitled for 100% amount to claim; that the opposite party paid 80% amount of the premium to the complainant, it seems, that the opposite party agreed that the policy holder paid two installments, in case, if the policy is lapsed, the 2nd installment will not be entertained to receive by the opposite party and not to take any fine amount from the policy holder, as such, the complainant is entitled for the claim of 100% amount; the complainant approached the opposite party to pay the 100% amount, but they failed to do so. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite party, the complainant filed the present complaint.

4. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party are that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that the complainant is put to strict proof of all the averments made in the complaint, except, those that are admitted; that it is admitted that the complainant’s son has obtained a policy vide No.649178430 under table and term 836/25/16 with the date of commencement of the policy on 28.10.2016, sum assured is Rs.5,00,000, the premium is Rs.22,712/-payable per annum; that the complainant’s son paid the 1^st premium of 28.10.2016 and he has not paid the 2^nd period with in the stipulated time i.e. 28.11.2017 including the grace period and it was due which was paid on 20.03.2018; that, if the pre