APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, Advocate Mrs. K. Radha, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. P. Prabhakar, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 30th JANUARY 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 13.02.2013, passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 154/2012, hairman Family Benefit Scheme, Indian Medical Association versus Tadinada Usha Ranivide which while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 18.01.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, Krishna, allowing the consumer complaint, CC No. 31/2011 was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/complainant Tadinada Usha Rani wife of late Doctor T.V.S. Ramakrishna filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that her husband was a life member of the Indian Medical Association, A.P. Branch. The said Association introduced a Family Benefit Scheme for its members and Dr. Ramakrishna became a member of the Scheme vide membership number M/1/0022/002252/92 in the year 1992 and nominated the complainant as his nominee. The husband of the complainant regularly contributed to the Scheme till March 2010. However, he fell seriously ill in March 2010 and was admitted in several private hospitals for treatment and ultimately, he expired on 15.10.2010. The complainant has stated that she was not aware of the terms of payment of the Scheme. However, on 27.12.2010, while vacating the dispensary cum rental house, she found a letter dated 8.12.2010 from the Opposite Party supposed to be a reminder notice for bill no. 38 dated 1.09.2010, reminding for payment of `2,215/- towards instalments and late fees. The complainant sent a letter on the very next date, i.e., 28.12.2010, bringing to the notice of the OP about the sickness of her husband, the treatment taken and his death on 15.10.2010. The complainant also remitted an amount of `2215/- by way of bank draft as per the bill. She requested the OP to send her the claim form, but there was no response from them. On 1.3.2011, the complainant received a bill in the name of her husband, directing him to pay `1,440/- stating that this payment was due by 31.3.2011. The complainant sent reply to this letter on 26.03.2011. She also made payment of `1440/- as stated in the fresh bill and again requested the OP to settle the claim. However, on 4.05.2011, the complainant was informed by the OP that her husband had become defaulter for non-payment of the subscription on 1.09.2010 and his name had been deleted from the list of Members of Scheme. The amounts of `2,215/- and `1,440/- were also returned by the OP. The complainant/respondent then filed the consumer complaint in question, before the District Forum. As per order dated 18.01.2012, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay a sum of `4,93,085/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., 8.8.2011 till payment and also to pay cost of `2,000/- to the complainant. The appeal filed before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum was dismissed by the said Commission vide impugned order dated 13.02.2013. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 3. It has been stated in the complaint that under the Scheme, every member had to subscribe `2100/- for every half year before the end of March and September every year. This version of the complainant is, however, not correct, because as per the Constitution of this Family Benefit Scheme, a contribution of `100/- has to be made by every member, each time towards Fraternity Contribution, in the event of death of a member, which is paid to the nominee of the deceased member. At the time of framing the Scheme, this amount was `50/- for every death, but it was subsequently raised to `100/-. It has been provided that a demand letter is issued by the Secretary of the Scheme on 1st March and 1st September on every year in which the demand for contribution from individual members is raised, depending upon the number of deaths that have taken place during the preceding six months. To elaborate, in the demand letter to be issued on 1st March, say 1.03.2012, the number of deaths that have taken place from 1.09.2011 to 28.02.2012 shall be taken into account. If 20 people have died during this period, the demand shall be `2000/- from every living member, along with `40/- as administrative expenses, meaning thereby that every member shall be asked to pay a sum of `2040/-. This sum is payable by 31st March or 30th September of the relevant period. However, if the money is not paid in time, the members can still make the payment, alongwith a late fee of `25 per month. It is also provided that if the contribution is not paid within six months of the demand so raised, the membership will be terminated after issuing a notice under registered post. These provisions are contained in clause X, para 2, which is reproduced as below:- . 2. If a member fails to pay his/her share of Fraternity Contribution within 30 days of the demand by the Secretary, he/she shall be treated as a defaulter and he/she shall pay an extra amount of `25/- per month or part thereof as late fee. If a member does not clear he/she dues within 6 months after the demand by the Secretary, his/her membership will be terminated and his/her caution deposit forfeited after issuing a Notice under Registered Post Acknowledgement due. 4. It is clear from above that a member is free to deposit his contribution within a period of 6 months of the demand being raised, without his membership being terminated, although he shall be treated as defaulter if the amount is not deposited within 30 days of the demand. 5. It has further been provided in the Constitution of the Scheme that a caution deposit of `900/- has to be made by every member, which is refundable at the time of cessation of membership. In the event of death of a member, the Fraternity Contribution to be paid to the nominee of the deceased member is drawn from the caution deposit, and later on recouped after raising demand from the living members on 1st March and 1st September every year as explained above. 6. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was an admitted case of the complainant that the payment of subscription which was due in September 2010, had not been made by her husband in time and the same was paid after his death by the complainant. In accordance with the terms and conditions governing the Scheme, a defaulter Member can continue with scheme by paying the arrears according to rules. However, payment made on behalf of dead member was not valid. In this case, since the payment had been made after the death of the Member, it was not obligatory on the part of the petitioner to pay the claim. Learned counsel for the respondent, while admitting that payment had been made after the death of the Member stated that claim should be paid, as defaulter could make payment within the grace period. 7. We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. It is made out from the facts on record that the Family Benefit Scheme of the A.P. State Branch of the Indian Medical Association came into operation with effect from 1.10.1990. A copy of the Constitution of the Scheme has been placed on record in which details about the operation of the Scheme including enrolment fees, termination of membership claim etc. have been given. A careful reading of the clause X, para 2 of the scheme, as stated above, indicates that termination of Membership takes place only, if a member does not clear his dues within six months after the demand raised by the Secretary and that also, after issuing a notice under registered cover. In the present case, it is clear, therefore that had the Member lived beyond 15.10.2010, he could have cleared his default by making payment alongwith late fees. The contention raised by the petitioner that payment of a dead Member cannot be accepted from his legal representatives etc. does not hold ground in view of the fact that the default can be cleared by payment of subscription with late fees. The constitution of the scheme nowhere provides that the payment cannot be accepted from the legal heirs of a dead member. It is also clear that the deceased has been making regular payment of premium since 1992, but because of his sickness from March 2010 onwards, if he could not make the payment of one subscription which was due in September 2010, in time, his family cannot be allowed to suffer just for one default in making the payment and more so, when the provisions exists in the Scheme for accepting the subscription with late fees. The Aims and Objectives of the Scheme very clearly provide that the Scheme has been framed to provide immediate substantial financial aid to the family of the Member of the Scheme on his/her demise. The said objectives shall be absolutely defeated, if a view is taken that just for one default in making payment of subscription and that also because of his sickness and consequential death, the membership stands terminated and the family of deceased is not given the benefit of Fraternity Contribution. The Constitution of the Scheme clearly provided that membership can be terminated only if the payment is not made within six months of demand (with late fees) and that also, after giving a registered notice to the beneficiary. 8. It is quite clear from the above that the State Commission and the District Forum have made a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record and came to the conclusion that the opposite party was not justified in repudiating the claim filed by the family of the deceased member on the ground that he could not make payment of the demanded amount of `2,215/- through bill no. 38 dated 1.09.2010. This payment could very well be made within a period of six months of the demand along with late fees and the membership could be terminated only after giving registered notice to the Member. In the meantime, if the Member died on 15.10.2010, it shall be unjustified to deprive his family about the benefit of the Scheme towards which the deceased contributed since 1992. 9. Based on the discussion above, it is held that the impugned order passed by the State Commission and the order of the District Forum do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error. The same are, therefore, upheld and the present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.