MAHESH KUMAR PRAJAPATI Vs. ZONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 06.09.2014 and 30.03.2015; whereby, the appointment of the petitioner as Agent under Regulation 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 has been cancelled and the renewal commissions has been forfeited. And an Appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that having been appointed as Agent under Regulations in the year 2001 petitioner has been discharging his duty diligently and in accordance with the norms settled by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. That on 19.05.2012, the petitioner insured one Shri Ravishankar Dubey. The insured was known to the petitioner for over eight years and was hail and hearty with no report of his being ill or suffering from any life threatening disease. Later on, petitioner received notice on 24.10.2013 from the respondent; whereby, he was informed that the insured Shri Ravishanker Dubey expired on 1.06.2012 i.e. 12 days from his insurance. It was informed that on enquiry it was found that he died of heart attack.

(3.) The petitioner submits that vide said intimation petitioner was charged of dereliction of his duty as an agent, however, he has not been provided the documents on the basis whereof the respondent had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner derelict in his duty. It is urged that the petitioner denied the charges of suppressing facts as to the illness of the insured. It is urged that without causing any further inquiry and without having supplied information said to have been collected in fact finding inquiry, the respondent by order dated 06.09.2014 terminated the agency of the petitioner and directed for forfeiture of renewal of commissions. It is urged that an Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority without appreciating the fact that it was the information which was given by the insurer being relied upon by the petitioner and without appreciating that no effective opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal by order dated 30.02015. It is further urged that since there was no concealment of fact by the petitioner who on his past experience and after knowing the insurer for last eight years and after collecting information from him and other sources that he was not suffering from any life threatening decease, the petitioner had proposed the insurer Ravi Shankar Dubey. Because he died within twelve days from the date of insurance, respondents have construed the same to be concealment of fact on the part of the petitioner. It is urged that while insuring a person the agent has to rely on the statement given by the insurer and it is only after assured statement coupled with other facts and having knowing person for last eight years, the proposal was made; therefore, the presumption drawn by the respondent of concealing the fact is without any basis. It is urged that since conclusion arrived at is on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.