K. Kannan, J. - (1.) The petitioner challenges the order passed by the authority, which is the LIC, denying the renewal of agent's commission to the agent, whose agency was terminated. The termination of agency and the consequences flowing from thereon were subject of three rounds of litigation before this Court namely in CWP Nos. 18516 of 2002, 18448 of 2004 and 20776 of 2006. It may not be necessary to state all the facts that are contained in respective petitions but the only relevant fact is that the petitioner's agency was sought to be cancelled on an allegation of fraud attributed to the agent in attesting to the renewal of a lapsed policy without knowing the state of health of the insured and allowing for the assured to collect the surviving benefits after deducting the value of the premiums payable. As it turned out, the petitioner canvased for yet another policy for the same assured subsequently and the Medical Officer authorised by LIC had also found him fit and the policy appears to have continued further on.
(2.) The allegation against the petitioner was that the assured had had an accident and was in a prolonged treatment during the time when the policy had lapsed and the agent ought to have been known about this ailment. The petitioner was denying this knowledge attributed to him and was pointing out to the situation of how the doctor had actually found him fit when a policy was taken two years later namely on 28.1.1997 when his own affirmation to the petitioner's fitness at the time of revival of earlier policy was on 15.1.1995. At the second round of litigation when the authorities persisted with the termination of agency, the petitioner obtained an earlier exit on his own submission through counsel that he had known of another agent who had been visited with punishment of termination of agency on allegations of fraud but he had been favoured with restoration of the renewal commission and therefore he could be allowed to make a plea before the LIC for the similar relief. When such a relief was sought before the authority it was rejected by a cryptic order that a treatment of yet another agent cannot be compared. On a fresh challenge made in CWP No. 20776 of 2006, the Court observed that the circumstances were comparable and there was no justification for an Officer below the rank of Zonal Manager to take such a decision when the Authority's own decision was allowed to be reappraised by an Appellate Authority who was a higher official when the matter went back to the Zonal Manager, he passed the impugned order, holding that the agency performance of the other agent H.R.Gupta and petitioner was not comparable and hence the same treatment could be made.
(3.) The challenge to the order essentially rests on the discriminatory treatment and a particular understanding to the Rule which was purported to be applicable. In the case of Sh. H. R. Gupta, a person who had a heart ailment was admitted to a policy without the agent actually sharing the information with the Corporation. In the petitioner's case his contention was that he had no fraudulent role to play and his own affirmation that the insured was fit was vindicated by a certification that came even two years later by a medical officer that the insured was fit and it appears that the policy was still current.;