IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 O.P. No. 20343 of 1997(V) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- S.SHAHIDA BEEVI, ASHA NIVAS, CHOONDUPALAKA, KATTAKADA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, JEEVAN PRAKASH, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, L.I.C. OF INDIA, JEEVAN PRAKASH, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 3. ZONAL MANAGER, L.I.C. OF INDIA, SOUTHERN ZONAL OFFICE, L.I.C. BUILDING, ANNA ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 002. 4. CHAIRMAN, L.I.C. OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, 'YOGAKSHEMA”, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI - 400 021. ADV. SRI.S.ESWARAN, SC, LIC. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/ 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.20343/1997 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.DATED 30.7.1996 EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.9.1996 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF TERMINATION OF PETITIONER'S AGENCY WITH FORFEITURE OF HER RENEWAL COMMISSION. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.12.1996. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN O.P.3508 OF 1997 DATED 27.6.1997. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.9.1997 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON THE MEMORAIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXTS.P2 & P3. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R2(a) - COPY OF EXPLANATION DTED 2.9.1996 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(b) - COPY OF APPEAL PETITION DATED 15.10.1996 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(c) - COPY OF MEMORIAL DATED 8.7.1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(d) - COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.2.1996 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(e) - COPY OF PERSONAL STATEMENT OF SRI.MAHEEN KANNU. EXT.R2(f) - COPY OF ELECTRO CARDIOGRAM REPORT ISSUED BY DR.K.S.SASIDHARAN NAIR. EXT.R2(g) - COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY SMT.SALMA MAHEEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXTR2(h) - COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY DR.MOHANDAS. EXT.R2(i) - COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.3.1996 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(j) - COPY OF LETTER DATED 4.6.1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(k) - COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 5.7.1996 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(k-i) - COPY OF LETER ISSUED BY SMT.SALMA MAHEEN TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(k-ii) - COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY SMT.SALMA MAHEEN TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ O.P. NO.20343/1997-V ------------------------------ Dated this, the 15th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. While so, she was served with Ext.P1 notice dated 30.7.1996, calling upon her to show cause why her agency should not be terminated under Rule 16(1) and the commission payable to her should not be forfeited under Rule 19(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972. The allegation against her was that one Mr.Maheen Kannu, a life assured under the policy bearing No.781203043, died on 15.9.1995. It was a lapsed policy for failure of the life assured to remit the premia in time. After the death of the life assured, the policy was revived with the connivance of the petitioner. She witnessed the personal statement of health made by the impostor on behalf of Mr.Maheen Kannu and introduced the said person to the Medical Examiner, Dr.S.Mohan OP No.20343/1997 - 2 - Das, on 25.9.1995 for revival of the lapsed policy. Since she acted fraudulently and produced false documents, the policy was revived. Later, it was nullified. In view of the above commissions and omissions from the part of the petitioner, it was proposed in Ext.P1 to cancel her agency and to forfeit the agency commission. She submitted an explanation, denying the allegations against her. But, the copy of the same is not produced. The Senior Divisional Manager, the competent authority, after considering her reply to Ext.P1, passed Ext.P2 order dated 12.09.1996, terminating her agency in terms of Rule 16(1) and forfeiting the commission payable to her under Rule 19(1) of the L.I.C of India (Agents) Rules, 1972. The petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority dismissed that appeal by Ext.P3 order dated 17.12.1996. She filed a memorial before the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation. That memorial was dismissed by the Chairman by Ext.P5 order. Challenging Exts.P2, P3 and P5 the Original Petition was filed. 2. The contention taken in the Original Petition was that OP No.20343/1997 - 3 - she was unaware of the death of the life assured and she was not able to identify the impostor from the real person. So, she acted in good faith, under a mistaken belief that the life assured was alive. She also contended that unless she is found guilty in a judicial proceeding, the commission payable to her cannot be forfeited under Rule 19(1) of the said Rules. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit and along with which they have produced two letters written by the widow of the life assured, copies of which are produced as Exts.R2(k-i) and R2(k-ii). Those exhibits would show that the petitioner was having close relationship with the family of the life assured. Therefore, her claim that she was not able to identify the real person, is unsustainable, it is submitted. 3. Heard. The contention of the petitioner that for forfeiture of agency commission she should be found guilty in a judicial proceeding, is untenable, in view of the decision of this Court in W.A.No.2876/2007 dated 6.7.2009, the relevant portion of which is reported in 2009(3) KLT SN 41 - Case No.43 [L.I.C of India v. Balakrishna Reddiar]. OP No.20343/1997 - 4 - 4. Based on the materials on record, the L.I.C found that the petitioner was very familiar with the members of the family of the life assured and therefore, she has fraudulently acted in this case, by witnessing the medical examination and also facilitating the renewal of the policy. A perusal of the materials produced along with the counter affidavit, including Ext.R2(e) personal statement of Mr.Maheen Kannu witnessed by the petitioner, Ext.R2(f) report of the doctor, which is also witnessed by the petitioner and Exts.R2(k-i) and R2(k-ii) mentioned earlier, would show that the petitioner played an active role in facilitating the renewal of the policy and she was familiar with the members of the family of Mr.Maheen Kannu. So, the finding of the competent authority of the Life Insurance Corporation that the claim of the petitioner that she has committed a bona fide mistake in identifying the person cannot be accepted, cannot be said to be a perverse finding. It is a plausible view taken on the facts by the competent authority. OP No.20343/1997 - 5 - Therefore, this Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot interfere with the same. In the result, the Original Petition fails and it is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P. Bhavadasan, Judge. nm.