Succinctly put, factual backgrounds are that deceased insured, husband of petitioner who was in service in Panchan Devi Junior High School, Bahuara, Balia, had obtained policy from respondent Corporation and premium of policy was to be deducted from his salary for remittance to LIC of India. Though installments towards premium were paid to LIC of India in time upto October, 1994, subsequent installments were sent after considerable delay of time due to delayed receipt of grant in aid from Government, which insurance Corporation refused to acknowledge. Assured eventually died on 06.06.1997. Insurance Corporation made payment of paid-up value of policy. Widow - claimant of deceased insured, aggrieved with rejection of claim by LIC, finding no option, moved consumer Fora, filing a complaint. Though insurance Corporation disowned their liability resisting claim of widow, District Forum having over-ruled contentions raised, directed insurance Corporation to honour relief claimed along-with simple interest @ 18% p.a. Cost of litigation of Rs. 300/- and also compensation of Rs. 500/- for mental agony was awarded by District Forum. State Commission, however, in appeal, reversed finding of District Forum, finding no deficiency in service with respondent – LIC of India and it is how that claimant widow, is in revision. To appreciate rival contentions raised, we may refer to salient features of case with brevity. “It is a simple, economical plan whereby your employees may obtain life insurance protection for their families and retirement income for themselves under advantageous conditions which might no be available to them otherwise. This it accomplishes by savings automatically deducted from their pay and remitted to us once a month. This is not a group insurance. Each employee owns his policy individually, is entitled to all its benefits and can continue the policy in the event of any change in employment”. In case under consideration, though first premium was made by insured, he subsequently authorized school management for deduction of premium from his salary for remittance to LIC. Certain redeeming features which subsequently took turn are of significance as employee on his own motion, moved school management with following proposal :- “In case of my proceeding on leave without pay or drawing salary in advance without deducting premium accordingly or canceling this authority to deduct premium myself or resign from service, etc., any such reasons or factors beyond your control, if premium of said policy is not paid and consequences, if any, shall be under my own liability. In such case or circumstances if LIC of India terminates the scheme of salary deduction policy without any reason or in future for reasons whatever it may come the enhanced premium is payable by me or it shall be my liability to pay such enhanced premium to the insurance corporation directly”. Since insured himself assumed responsibility to bear consequences in case there was failure in payment of premium to LIC by school management for reasons or factors which were beyond their control, even though employer be deemed to be an agent of LIC, that will not bind either principal or agent, by virtue of terms of contract between employer and insured. Since school management was handicapped to remit premium to LIC for want of receipt of grant in aid from Government, owning responsibility, it was for insured to pay premium to LIC in event of failure of management to remit premium for circumstances which were in fact, beyond their control. Two decisions of Hon’ble Apex court, one in the matter of DESU Vs. Basanti Devi & Anr. – (1999) 8 SCC 229, and other in Chairman, LIC of India Vs. Rajiv Kumar Bhasker - (2005) 6 SCC 188 were referred to by learned counsel for petitioner putting emphasis that since grant in aid had not been received from Government, it was obligatory for employer to inform insured to make his own arrangement from other sources to ensure payment of premium to LIC and reliance was placed on a decision of (2005) (supra). In case cited (supra), Hon’ble Apex court held employer liable in absence of any evidence about any information having been given to insured in case employer was handicapped to remit premium for financial constraints. However, this issue has to be rejected, due information having been given to insured by employer to this effect and communication also bears signature of widow – claimant in token of acknowledgment of communication. Ratio of decision in (1999) case (supra) too, would not have application to case under consideration, there being different factual backgrounds. As in case of Basanti Devi, employer was held liable to honour claim of claimant as even after deduction of premium from salary of insured, that was not remitted to LIC. Factual backgrounds in both cases are quite different. State Commission has nicely appreciated fabric of scheme and also true import of responsibility undertaken by insured himself for remittance of premium to LIC, in case there was failure on part of employer for reasons beyond their control. To recapitulate, since receipt of grant in aid was not within competence of employer and situation being beyond their control, they are not to be blamed for non-remittance of premium to LIC on behalf of insured. No infirmity has crept in award of State Commission, which reversed order of District Forum, unsuiting petitioner. This revision petition resultantly, being without any substance, is dismissed, but without order as to cost.