VIMLABEN KESHAVLAL PATEL Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged order dated 7. 4. 1995 made by respondent No. 1-Authority terminating the Agency of the petitioner and also ordering forfeiture of renewal commission, as well as orders made by the Appellate Authority on 16. 8. 1996 and the Chairman on 10. 7. 2000 confirming the order made by respondent No. 1-Authority.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India (the Corporation) on and from 15. 12. 1987 under Himmatnagar Branch of the respondent Corporation. On 31. 12. 1994 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet cum Show-cause Notice under the DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER L. I. C. OF INDIA (AGENTS) REGULATIONS, 1972 (the Regulations) in relation to a proposal canvassed by the petitioner on the life of Shri Laxmanbhai Galabhai Raval on 27. 11. 1991 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, upon death of the assured on 26. 3. 1993. The principal charge was to the effect that the petitioner had failed to disclose material facts in the confidential report submitted by the petitioner to the Corporation and also in the proposal form which was witnessed by the petitioner. According to the respondent Corporation, the age of the deceased assured was 55 years at the time of proposal whereas it had been shown at 45 years; secondly, the deceased assured had sustained an accident on 29. 10. 1988 i. e. prior to the date of proposal for insurance and as a result, had been suffering from a permanent disability while walking, lifting weight due to fracture of the spinal cord. The petitioner was therefore called upon to show cause why the Agency should not be terminated with forfeiture of commission as per Regulations because the petitioner had knowingly perpetrated a fraud on the Corporation.

(3.) THE petitioner tendered reply on 19. 1. 1995 and after considering the same impugned order dated 7. 4. 1995 came to be made by respondent No. 1-Authority. The petitioner carried the matter in Appeal but did not succeed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 2414 of 2000 which came to be disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 3. 4. 2000 permitting withdrawal of the petition with a liberty to approach the Chairman and directing the Chairman to consider the memorial filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and decide the same within a period of three months. The petitioner thereupon filed the memorial on 10. 4. 2000 and the Chairman rejected the memorial vide impugned order dated 10. 7. 2000.