1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he availed Jeevan Sathi Double Covered Joint Life Plan with profit Policy vide No.572356655 from the OP on 11.02.2011 for the life covered of himself and his wife Namrata Patro.  It is submitted that the complainant is an agent of LIC under OP and the premium amount under the policy was to be deducted from the commission of the complainant.  It is further submitted that on 17.8.2015 the wife of the complainant died and hence the complainant approached the OP to issue claim application but till date the OP has not taken any action.  It is also further submitted that as per policy terms, in case of death of any of the life assured, there is no need for payment of any future premium but unfortunately the OP is deducting premium amount from the agency commission of the complainant.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to settle the death claim with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards compensation in favour of the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the Insurance Policy under Jeevan Sathi category Vides no.572356655 under which his wife Namrata Patro was 2^nd life assured.  It was admitted that the monthly premium of the policy as per standing instruction of the complainant was to be deducted by the OP from the commission earned by the complainant subject to availability of commission amount to his credit.  It is contended that as per direction of DCDRF, Malkangiri, an amount of Rs.44313/- was remitted on 21.3.2915 to the said Forum from the commission amount of the complainant drawn in favor of one Harish Rout in C. C. No.2/2013 and hence there was no money lying as commission for deduction towards premium.  Thus starting from 6/2011 till 02/2016 there were about 32 gap premiums and in spite of knowing the facts the complainant has not tried to rectify his latches.  The OP also further contended that the policy was in lapsed condition on the very date of receipt of claim form and through a letter dt.14.7.2016 they have intimated the complainant regarding admissibility of the claim.  As the policy was under lapsed condition at the time of death of the wife of the complainant, virtually there was no contract subsisting between the parties.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases and the complainant filed affidavit.  Both the parties have filed written arguments.

4.                     In this case, the policy taken by the complainant under which his wife was also 2^nd life and monthly premiums deducted from agency commission of the complainant are all admitted facts.  The case of the complainant is that the OP was regularly deducting the premium from his commission amount but after death of his wife they did not settle the claim.  The Ops on the other hand stated that there were 32 gap premiums starting from 6/2011 to 02/2016 due to non availability of amount in the credit of the complainant.  The OP further stated that as per order of DCDRF, Malkangiri in C.C. No.02/2013 and subsequent direction in EP No.21/2013 in the file of said Forum, the OP deducted a sum of Rs.44, 078/- from the commission of the complainant for remittance and the complainant is well aware of the fact.

5.                     The complainant stated that without any intimation to him, remittance of above amount to DCDRF is a fault of the OP.  From the above facts, it became clear that there was a decree passed against the complainant by DCDRF, Malkangiri and due to non compliance of order of the Forum, the present OP in execution case was directed to deduct the decretal dues from the commission of the complainant and remit the same in favor of D. Hr. in EP No.21/2013.  In our opinion, this award of the Forum against the complainant is a permanent liability and the OP has deducted the amount from the commission of the complainant as per court direction but not of his own accord.  As the complainant did not comply with the order, the Forum has realized the dues from where the amount of the complainant was available and hence the remittance of amount by the OP by deducting the same from the credit of the complainant, in our view, is not at all a fault of the OP.  It is also the duty of the complainant to see, from which source the commission comes and its volume and he should do accordingly to keep his policy alive.  From the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

6.                     It is seen that there are some premiums lying in the lapsed policy of the complainant and we feel he is entitled to get the said amount with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.  We are not inclined to award any death benefit in favor of the complainant as the policy was in lapsed condition at the time of death of 2^nd life assured.   Similarly, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation in view of above facts and circumstances of the case.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Opp. Party is directed to refund premiums so deposited under his policy with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case i.e. 16.04.2016 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)