ABHAY KUMAR SON OF LATE MADAN PRASAD Vs. L I C OF INDIA; ZONAL MANAGER, L I C OF INDIA; DIVISIONAL MANAGER, L I C OF INDIA; BRANCH MANAGER L I C OF INDIA JEHANABAD BRANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing part of the order dated 05.10.2011 passed by the Incharge Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation (the "LIC") in exercise of powers conferred by Regulation 24 of Life Insurance Corporation (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (the "Regulations") terminating the agency of the petitioner.

(3.) The short facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he was appointed as an Agent of the LIC under Jehanabad Branch on 19.05.1995 and allotted Agency Code No. 004351H and confirmed on 01.06.1996. He has been performing his duties to the satisfaction of the LIC and has enjoyed an unblemished career for about one and a half decades. In the year 2009, one Kalyan Kumar who was interested in an LIC policy for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- submitted his proposal form on 15.09.2005 to the Jehanabad branch office of the respondent LIC upon being introduced by the petitioner. The said proposer, Kalyan Kumar, did not disclose to the petitioner that he had been suffering from any diseases or that he had held any LIC policy in the past. The proposal form had been filled up in the proposer's own handwriting, correctly stating various particulars of the proposer such as his name, address, date of birth etc.. A specific denial was made in respect of of any past ailments, in response to such information sought in the proposal form under the heading "personal history". The proposal was accepted by the Jehanabad Branch. Soon thereafter on 17.01.2006, the life assured died. In view of early death of the life assured, the death claim stood repudiated. A show cause dated 09.11.2009 was given to the petitioner on the ground that the deceased life assured had three lapsed policies prior to submission of the proposal for the new policy. The information is this regard had not been disclosed and had been suppressed by the petitioner to defraud the respondent LIC. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause on 18.11.2009 which was, however, not accepted. By order dated 22.12.2009, the contention of the petitioner in his show cause reply was held to be untenable and without merit. Consequently, the petitioner's agency was terminated under Regulation 16(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Regulations, with forfeiture of all commissions payable to him. On appeal being preferred, the appellate authority concluded that the petitioner had suppressed the information about the previous lapsed policies and had connived with the proposer, thus having failed to discharge his duty in terms of Regulation 8(2)(b). A revision was thereafter preferred by the petitioner which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 05.10.2011, inter alia, holding that an agent being the preliminary underwriter, was expected to submit proposals after making all relevant enquiries of the proposed life assured, but the petitioner has failed to discharge his functions as an agent. The order dated 22.12.2009 as confirmed in appeal was thus upheld, with the modification that the petitioner was held to be eligible for the renewal commission.