S SHAHIDA BEEVI Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. While so, she was served with Ext.P1 notice dated 30.7.1996, calling upon her to show cause why her agency should not be terminated under Rule 16(1) and the commission payable to her should not be forfeited under Rule 19(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972. The allegation against her was that one Mr.Maheen Kannu, a life assured under the policy bearing No.781203043, died on 15.9.1995. It was a lapsed policy for failure of the life assured to remit the premia in time. After the death of the life assured, the policy was revived with the connivance of the petitioner. She witnessed the personal statement of health made by the impostor on behalf of Mr.Maheen Kannu and introduced the said person to the Medical Examiner, Dr.S.Mohan Das, on 25.9.1995 for revival of the lapsed policy. Since she acted fraudulently and produced false documents, the policy was revived. Later, it was nullified. In view of the above commissions and omissions from the part of the petitioner, it was proposed in Ext.P1 to cancel her agency and to forfeit the agency commission. She submitted an explanation, denying the allegations against her. But, the copy of the same is not produced. The Senior Divisional Manager, the competent authority, after considering her reply to Ext.P1, passed Ext.P2 order dated 12.09.1996, terminating her agency in terms of Rule 16(1) and forfeiting the commission payable to her under Rule 19(1) of the L.I.C of India (Agents) Rules, 1972. The petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority dismissed that appeal by Ext.P3 order dated 17.12.1996. She filed a memorial before the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation. That memorial was dismissed by the Chairman by Ext.P5 order. Challenging Exts.P2, P3 and P5 the Original Petition was filed.

(2.) The contention taken in the Original Petition was that she was unaware of the death of the life assured and she was not able to identify the impostor from the real person. So, she acted in good faith, under a mistaken belief that the life assured was alive. She also contended that unless she is found guilty in a judicial proceeding, the commission payable to her cannot be forfeited under Rule 19(1) of the said Rules. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit and along with which they have produced two letters written by the widow of the life assured, copies of which are produced as Exts.R2(k-i) and R2(k-ii). Those exhibits would show that the petitioner was having close relationship with the family of the life assured. Therefore, her claim that she was not able to identify the real person, is unsustainable, it is submitted.

(3.) Heard. The contention of the petitioner that for forfeiture of agency commission she should be found guilty in a judicial proceeding, is untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in W.A.No.2876/2007 dated 6.7.2009, the relevant portion of which is reported in - Case No.43 [L.I.C of India v. Balakrishna Reddiar,2009 3 KLTSN 41].