- (1.) This writ petition has been preferred by M.D. Souza assailing the order dated 11/4/1996 (Exh.11) issued by the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ajmer, who in the disciplinary proceedings inflicted upon him, penalty of termination of his agency under Rule 8 and Rule 16(1)(a)(b)(d) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (for short, the "Regulations of 1972") with forfeiture of all accrued commission. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 6/11/1996 (Exh.14) by which, a communication was served upon him informing that his appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment has been dismissed by the appellate authority.
(2.) Facts as disclosed in the writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as an agent of the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ajmer w.e.f. November, 1965. He received a letter dated 22/2/1995 from Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Ajmer calling upon his explanation as to why a bad life of late Shri Kishanlal Sharma was introduced by him for insurance. Petitioner replied to the said letter on 10/3/1995 giving his explanation. He was served with another show cause notice dated 30/3/1995 holding him liable for breach of Regulations 8, 15 & 16(1)(d) of the Regulations of 1972 and called upon him to submit his reply within fifteen days. Petitioner vide his letter dated 2/5/1995, requested to be furnished with copies of documents relevant to the charges such as, proposal form, agent's report copy and medical certificate so as to enable him to submit his reply. This was further followed by yet another letter dated 12/6/1995 reiterating the aforesaid request. Instead of supplying the documents, respondents served upon the petitioner another communication dated 30/5/1995 calling upon him to give reply to the earlier show cause notice within seven days. Petitioner vide letter dated 24/7/1995 again invited the attention of the respondents towards his letter dated 12/6/1995 requesting them to supply copy of the relevant documents. In the meantime, respondents stopped payment of accrued commission on the policies procured by him. Petitioner thereupon served a legal notice for demand of justice dated 16/7/1995 through his counsel on the respondents. It was at this stage that the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Ajmer suddenly served yet another show cause notice dated 30/1/1996 calling upon petitioner to submit his reply within fifteen days. Petitioner thereupon by his letter dated 29/2/1996 again requested for supply of those documents. In reply to that, he was advised to visit Divisional Office, Ajmer to inspect all the documents. Accordingly, petitioner visited the office on 27/3/1996 and as per the averments in the writ petition, he was allowed to inspect the Agent's report, ACR dated 19/1/1992 of Udaipur Hospital and Ticket dated 29/1/1992 of Tata Memorial Hospital. Petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 1/4/1996 maintaining that he was not at all liable for introducing the alleged bad life. In fact, the decision to accept the proposal was taken by the competent authority after a thorough scrutiny of the relevant papers including confidential medical report of the doctors approved on the panel of the Corporation. The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Ajmer however by the impugned-order dated 11/4/1996 (Ex.11) terminated his agency, and the appeal filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed as was informed vide communication dated 6/11/1996 (Exh.14). Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) Shri Sunil Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Regulations of 1972 have been framed by the Corporation in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 with the approval of the Central Government. These Regulations are statutory in nature. The aforesaid Regulations postulates that the respondents while passing any orders in disciplinary enquiry shall have make compliance of the principle of natural justice and ensure fairness, rationality and fair-play as against arbitrariness, whims and capriciousness. Despite repeated demands of petitioner, respondent-Corporation did not supply copies of relevant documents to petitioner on which the charge was allegedly found proved against him. It was contended that the Regulation 8(2)(b) of the Regulations of 1972 provides that an agent shall make all reasonable enquiries in regard to the lives to be insured, before recommending proposals for acceptance and bring to the notice of the Corporation any circumstances, which may adversely affect the risk to be under written. The word 'reasonable' is very significant, which the petitioner in any manner has not failed to discharge as an agent. Word 'reasonable' has to be construed within the bounds of what is possible. While introducing the proposal, the petitioner acted in accordance with the Regulations and took reasonable care. In case, proposer furnishes a wrong information, which could not be detected by the petitioner despite exercise of reasonable care, he cannot be made liable for the mischief of the proposer. Petitioner was not a medical man so as to diagnosis all such sickness/ailments with which the proposer was suffering. Confidential medical report was furnished by the doctors, who were on approved panel of the Corporation, which proposal was having been accepted by the competent authority. Petitioner cannot therefore be held liable for any suppression of material information and facts. As an agent, petitioner had no valid reason to dispute the correctness of the medical report of the medical examiner therefore action cannot be taken against him under Regulation 16(1)(a)(b)(d) of the Regulations of 1972. Hence, according to the petitioner, he did not act in prejudice to the Corporation. The disciplinary authority by recording such a finding has not considered the submission made by the petitioner in proper perspective and has not given any cogent/valid or sound reason to reject his appeal.;