ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. Member
1. This is a Revision Petition filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India against the Complainant and Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd., the employer of the deceased insured. The facts of the case have been discussed in detail in the impugned order which was passed on appeal by the Complainant. The facts of this case are similar to the case which came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi and Anr. AIR 2000 SC 43. There was a salary savings scheme of LIC whereby the employer was to deduct premium every month from the salary of the employer and remit it to the LIC and the LIC was paying certain commission to employer for this service. The insured was taken ill and died after hospitalisation. During long period of absence, though salary was paid to him but the leave was granted to him ex-post facto and all the salary for the leave period was released to him. However, the employer did not carry out deduction from that salary and remit the same to LIC for a period of 8 months. As a consequence thereof, the policy lapsed. No notice of non-payment was given to the insured either by the employer or by the LIC nor did the LIC sent any notice to the employer. In the light of this, the District Forum decreed the claim holding both the employer and the LIC liable to make payment under the policy. As the employer was acting for carrying out deduction from the wages and remit to LIC on behalf of the LIC and to that extent it was acting as agent of LIC. The State Commission has further noted that neither the LIC nor the employer challenged the decision of the District Forum but that decision was reviewed on appeal by the Complainant and it came to the conclusion that the amount of the policy was payable by the insurer to the Complainant but it authorised the LIC to recover the premium in default out of the amount payable. When this decision of the State Commission was announced the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in DESU v. Basanti Devi referred to herein above had not yet been rendered. However, the position stands fully explained and the law has since been clarified on the point and the employer, in such circumstances, held to be agent of LIC. From the facts that during the default in payment of premium no deductions were made from the salary it being not a case where no salary was payable for any period there appears to be a deficiency. In the light of the discussion above there is no warrant for us to interfere with the findings of the State Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. The order of the State Commission is upheld and the Revision Petition is dismissed.