RAJESH KUMAR Vs. SBI LIFE INDURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by termination of his insurance agency by respondent and seeks its restoration with direction to respondents to pay the renewal commission from the date of termination, till the date of payment with interest. Petitioner claims that he was appointed as respondent's Insurance Agent and was issued license of 27th October, 2010 (Annexure P-1) by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India. It is pertinent to note that this license was valid up to 26th October, 2013. Petitioner, who appears in person, has chosen to argue this petition by submitting that the requisite fee to renew the license was deposited in October, 2013 only and when he sought further renewal of license, it was not renewed and he was informed by respondent that petitioner's insurance agency stands terminated.

(2.) The grievance of petitioner is that prior to termination of the insurance agency, no Show Cause Notice was issued to him and he received the termination letter of 24th June, 2015 (Annexure P-4) only in January, 2016 and that petitioner had preferred an appeal, which stood dismissed vide order of 10th February, 2016 (Annexure P-7), in which it was disclosed that petitioner had issued a fake premium receipt to the client. Petitioner further claims that he had approached the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDA) and with its intervention, petitioner's second appeal was entertained by respondents, which also stands dismissed vide order of 28th December, 2016 (Annexure P-10) holding that petitioner had provided fake premium receipt to customers and had indulged in sourcing business through telemarketing. Thereafter, petitioner had sent an e-mail on 3rd August, 2012, which has been responded to by respondents on 16th August, 2017 (Annexure P-11) reiterating the order in appeal.

(3.) Petitioner submits that the reason put forth in the impugned termination order of 24th June, 2015 (Annexure P-4) is of petitioner misguiding customers regarding policy benefits and that the said policy was used with the help of unauthorized party whereas in the appellate order, the reason given for cancellation is different i.e. providing fake premium receipt to customer and sourcing business through telemarketing.