Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 31st October, 2003 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack in C D Appeal No. 902 of 1997, confirming the order dated 29th October, 1997 passed by the District Forum in C D Case No. 134 of 1996, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter be referred as LIC) has preferred this revision petition. By the impugned order, the State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum. The District Forum directed the LIC as well as the Executive Engineer, Orissa Lift Irrigation Division (employer) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the complainant within three months from the date of the order and in default directed to pay the said amount with interest @ 18% per annum till the payment is made. The District Forum also directed that the LIC as well OP No. 3, shall pay Rs.500/- each as cost to the complainant. Against that order the Executive Engineer, Orrisa Lift Irrigation Corporation filed C D Appeal No. 898 of 1997 and LIC filed C D Appeal No. 902 of 1997. By the impugned order, the State Commission directed the LIC to pay the entire sum insured Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 6th February, 1996, till its payment. For passing the impugned order, the State Commission has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of “Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vs Basanti Devi and Another – (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 229”. In our view the decision rendered by the State Commission cannot be said to be in any way erroneous in view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Apex Court. Further, in the subsequent judgment namely – “Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation and Others vs Rajiv Kumar Bhasker (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 188”, the Apex Court has taken the same view. It is true that in the present case the Executive Engineer has defaulted in remitting the monthly premium to the LIC for ten months but for that fault, the employee (insured) cannot be penalized. Further as per the terms quoted by the Apex Court in the aforesaid two judgments, it is clear that it was the duty of the LIC to inform the employer for remitting the premium. However, the learned Counsel for the LIC relied upon the terms of the insurance policy and submits that as per term No. 2, the grace period for paying the premium was only for 15 days and the same can be revived as provided in term No. 3. For appreciating the said contention we would refer to term No. 2 which is as under: “A grace period of one month but not less than 30 days will be allowed for payment of yearly, half yearly or quarterly premiums and 15 days for monthly premiums. If death occurs within this period and before the payment of the premium then due, the policy will still be valid and the sum assured paid after deduction of the said premium as also the unpaid premium falling due before the next anniversary of the Policy. In the case of death, unpaid premium, if any, falling due before the next policy anniversary shall be deducted from the claim amount”. The underlined portion of the aforesaid term specifically provides that, if death occurs within grace period and before the payment of the premium then due, the policy will still be valid and the sum assured is to be paid after deduction of the said premium, and also the unpaid premium falling due before the next anniversary of the policy. It is also to be clarified that the aforesaid term of the insurance policy is to be complied with by the employer, and not by the employee for whose benefit the policy under Salary Saving Scheme is taken by the employer. In any set of circumstances, it was the duty of the LIC to inform the employees for non-payment of premium as per the offer given by the LIC for such “Salary Saving Scheme’ as quoted by the Apex Court in the aforesaid two judgments. Further, the learned Counsel for the LIC has relied upon the term No. 3 which provides for revival of the discontinued policies. In our view the said term is not applicable in the present case because it provides that before the death of the insured the policy can be revived within a period of five years from the date of its lapse. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. LIC is directed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum as directed by the State Commission within a period of six weeks from today, if not paid by this time. There shall be no order as to costs.
......................JM.B. SHAHPRESIDENT
......................RAJYALAKSHMI RAOMEMBER | | 
