Son of Sitaram Shukla, the complainant/respondent herein, had taken a life insurance policy for Rs.50,000/- on 28.6.1999 from the petitioner insurance company.  Half-yearly premium was Rs.2,175/-.  Premium was paid upto 13.9.2000.  Insured died on 9.4.2001.  Sitaram Shukla, being the nominee, lodged a claim with the petitioner insurance company, which was repudiated by the petitioner on the ground that the policy was lying in a lapsed condition, as the insured had not made payment of the fourth premium, which was due in the month of December 2000.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the insured amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 10% .  Rs.500/- were awarded by way of costs.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.

Before the Revision Petition came up for preliminary hearing, complainant, in execution of the decree, realized the decretal amount. 

After the issuance and service of the Notice on the complainant/respondent, the respondent died.  Petitioner has moved an application for bringing on record the LRs of the deceased respondent.  LRs of the Respondent are not present despite service.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.  Prima facie, we agree with the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that since the policy was lying in the lapsed condition, the fora below have erred in allowing the complaint and directing the petitioner to pay the insured amount but since the respondent has died and the amount has already been realized by the respondent, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the fora below with the observation that the decision given by the State Commission be not taken as a precedent for future reference. 

Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.