Life Insurance Corporation of India, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 29.9.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in appeal no.282/2004 whereby the State Commission has affirmed the order passed by the -2- District Forum except that it has reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 9%. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent/complainant’s husband had taken a money back policy from the petitioner commencing from 15.9.1993 for a period of 20 years. The policy holder was to pay quarterly installments of Rs.1,690/-. Respondent’s husband died on 09.8.1995. As per allegations made in the complaint, respondent came to know about the policy in the year 1998 and immediately thereafter, she issued a legal notice to the petitioner which was duly served and thereafter, the complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking the payment of the policy amount of Rs.1 Lac with bonus. Petitioner on being served entered appearance and filed the Written Statement taking the stand that the policy was lying in a lapsed condition as the insured did not pay the quarterly installment premium due on 15.6.1995. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay the sum of Rs.1 Lac jointly and severally along with the bonus with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the -3- complaint i.e. 24.12.1998 till the date of payment and costs of Rs.1,000/-. State Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum except that it reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 9%. The State Commission has recorded the following findings: We have gone through the material on record. It is not in dispute that the policy holder died on 9.8.1995. Respondent/opposite party No.1 with whom the essential documents are available, has not chosen to place them before the Forum or at the appellate stage like the details with respect to premium due in June, 1995. They did not give reply even to the legal notice issued by the respondent/complainant’s counsel. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in III (2005) CPJ 31 (SC) in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mani Ram wherein it was held that ‘if premium is not paid within the grace period, the insurance company is justified in rejecting the claim of the complainant. In the instant case, the appellant has not filed any documentary evidence to sustain his contention that the premium was not paid ending in June, 1995. Keeping in view these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency of -4- service on behalf of the appellant in not furnishing the details of non payment of premium and non reply to the legal notice. However, we are of the opinion that the interest granted at 12% p.a. is on the higher side and reduce the same to 9% p.a. while confirming the other aspects of the order of the District Forum. In the result the appeal is allowed in part by reducing the interest granted from 12% to 9% p.a. while confirming the other aspects of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance six weeks.” Notice sent to the respondent has been received back duly served. Respondent is not present, though the counter affidavit filed by the respondent dated 01.12.2007 is on record. We are disposing of the revision petition in the absence of the respondent after taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. We find from the record that the respondent had written a letter to the petitioner on 26.9.1995 requesting the petitioner to give the claim forms stating therein that her husband had expired and she proposes to file a claim. Petitioner had replied to the said letter on 04.12.1995 informing the respondent that the policy was lying in a lapsed condition due to non-payment of quarterly premium -5- installment on15.6.1995. Respondent, thereafter, after a lapse of three years issued a legal notice dated 01.12.1998 which was duly responded by the petitioner on 05.12.1998. The respondent in the reply dated 05.12.1998 reiterated its stand that the policy was lying in a lapsed condition as the insured had not paid the premium due in the month of June, 1995. On perusal of the aforesaid record, we are of the opinion that the State Commission has erred in holding that the petitioner did not either respond to the letter written by the respondent or the legal notice sent by her. Petitioner in its letter dated 04.12.1995 as well as 05.12.1998 written in response to the legal notice issued by the respondent had clearly stated that the policy was lying in a lapsed condition due to non-payment of the premium due in the month of June, 1995. The onus to prove that the insured had paid the premium was on the respondent which the respondent has failed to discharge. The State Commission has erred in placing the negative onus on the petitioner to prove that it had not received the premium. The stand of the petitioner before us is that the policy was lying in a lapsed condition doe to non-payment of quarterly premium due in June, 1995. It was for the respondent to prove or show that -6- they had paid the premium due on 15.6.1995 which the respondent has failed to discharge. Supreme Court in “(2005) 6 SCC 274 Life insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mani Ram” has held that if the premium is not paid within the grace period, the insurance company is justified in rejecting the claim of the complainant. The point in issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid case (supra). The policy was lying in a lapsed condition, which was never got revived by the insured before his death. For the reasons stated above, we allow this revision petition and the orders passed by the fora below are set aside. Petitioner would be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by it. | 
