AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Nagamuthu, J.—The Petitioner was appointed as an Agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India with effect from 25.08.1996. His Code Number is Agency Code No. 362300, attached to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kuzhithurai Branch in Tirunelveli Division. One Sri N. Valsalam, a Bricks Contractor of Nachivilai Veedu Village was a policy holder under Policy No. 320144353. Due to non-payment of the dues, the policy lapsed. On 24.01.1997, on a request made by the lapsed policy holder, the same was revived. For such revival, the Petitioner, being the agent, recommended and witnessed. Unfortunately, the insured died on 05.02.1997. According to the Respondents, the death was due to liver cirrhosis. Alleging that the Petitioner did not make proper enquiries, a show cause notice was issued to him by the Divisional Office, Palayamkottai calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why the agency should not be terminated. The said show cause notice came to be issued on 08.12.1997. The Petitioner submitted an explanation on 10.01.1998 informing the Divisional Office that to his knowledge, the deceased was not suffering from any disease. The same was not to the satisfaction of the Corporation. Therefore, a final order was passed by the Divisional Manager, Palayamkottai, under Rule 8(b), 16(1)(a) and (b) and 19(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules of 1972, on 23.04.1998, terminating his agency. Challenging the same, he preferred an appeal to the Zonal Manager, Chennai and the same was rejected on 10.12.1999. As against the said order, he preferred a further appeal to the Chairman under Rule 24 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules of 1972. The same was rejected on 01.11.2000. Challenging the same, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 6091 of 2002 before the Principal Bench of this Court. By order dated 17.03.2004, this Court set aside the order passed by the Chairman and remitted the matter back to the Chairman with a direction to the Chairman to afford sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner and then to pass appropriate orders.
In pursuance of the said order, the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation of India took up the matter for further enquiry, in which, the Petitioner participated on 25.06.2004. During the enquiry, the Petitioner reiterated his stand that he was not aware of any illness of which the deceased was suffering from. He submitted that to his knowledge, the deceased was hale and healthy. The same was not again accepted by the Chairman. Therefore, by order dated 29.06.2004, the Chairman, once again, confirmed the order of termination. Challenging the same, the Petitioner is now before this Court with the present Writ Petition.
I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. I have also perused the records carefully.
At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents would raise a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition. According to him, the agency in question is governed by a private contract and, therefore, the same is not amenable to Writ jurisdiction. He would further submit that such a private contract cannot be sought to be enforced before this Court by invoking the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would refute the said contention. According to him, the agency in question cannot be termed as a private contract pure and simple. He would submit that the appointment of an agent is governed by the statutory provision. The statutory rule prescribes the qualification, method of appointment and regulates the service conditions of an agent, termination and discontinuance, etc. Therefore, according to him, the agency is amenable to Writ jurisdiction, as there is an element of public duty under the said contract.
Since the question of maintainability is raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, I deem it appropriate to deal with the same at the first.
Indisputably, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations of 1972 has been issued in exercise of the power vested in the Life Insurance Corporation u/s 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act of 1956 with the previous approval of the Central Government. The said regulations prescribe the qualifications for appointment of an LIC agent. It further provides for training and tests, probation, minimum amount of business to be secured by agents, payment of commission to agents, gratuity and term insurance benefits, Corporation''s lien on agent''s dues, termination of agency, termination of agency on cancellation of, or failure to renew license, termination of agency on account of certain disqualifications, termination of agency for certain lapses, termination of agency by notice, provision for appeal, transmission of appeal, mode of disposal of the appeal and memorial as against the order in appeal to the Chairman, etc.
The entire scheme of these regulations would go to show that an appointment of an agent cannot be termed as a private contract pure and simple, as it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. The very fact that there are certain qualifications prescribed, there is training prescribed and there is probation also prescribed would go to show that it is something more than a private contract. The duty of an agent appointed under this rule, is for the benefit of the public. The Life Insurance Corporation of India itself has been constituted only for the benefit of the people. Therefore, there is an element of public duty which is discharged by an agent appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations of 1972. When there is an element of public duty cast upon both the Life Insurance Corporation of India as well as the Agents appointed, in my considered opinion, an appointment of LIC agent, refusal to appoint an LIC agent and termination are all amenable to Writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the foremost objection raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents regarding the maintainability is rejected.
Now, coming to the facts of the case, it is seen from the records that the claim made by the legal heirs of the deceased was repudiated by the Corporation. Challenging the same, the legal heirs of the deceased filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil in Original Petition No. 17 of 2001. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, by order dated 27.09.2001, found the repudiation as not sustainable under law and directed the Corporation to settle the claim of the legal heirs of the deceased as per the terms and conditions of the policy in question. A perusal of the said order would go to show that though it was contended before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum that the deceased was suffering from some ailment prior to 24.01.1997, the Tribunal has not accepted the said contention for want of evidence. The said order has become final and it is brought to my notice that the Corporation has settled the claim in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased. This is one circumstance which goes against the Corporation.
Nextly, though it is contended even in this Writ Petition that the deceased was suffering from liver cirrhosis and he died of cardiac failure due to the same, absolutely no material has been brought on record to prove the same. A perusal of the entire records right from the show cause notice and all the orders passed by various authorities in this regard would go to show that though it is repeatedly referred to that the deceased was suffering from liver cirrhosis and he died of cardiac failure, there is no reference to any medical opinion. It is also not the case of the Corporation that any such opinion was obtained by the Corporation from any doctor and a copy of such report was furnished to the Petitioner. However, there is a reference about the medical certificate issued by one Dr. S. Krishnamoorthy, M.B.B.S., Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Arumanai in the order in O.P. No. 17 of 2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Even that certificate has not been produced during the enquiry and in the present proceedings, a copy of the same was also not produced. Even the doctor was not examined to find out the cause of death.
Apart from that, when a specific enquiry was made to the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents to explain to the Court as to what was the actual cause of death and what are the materials available to substantiate the contention that the death was due to cardiac arrest, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents would submit that from enquiries, the Corporation came to know that the deceased was suffering from liver cirrhosis and the death was due to cardiac failure. The said ipso dixit statement of the Corporation cannot be given any weightage off.
Admittedly, the dead body was not subjected to any post mortem to find out the actual cause of death. Even the doctor, who lastly treated the patient, has not been examined and no certificate even be obtained from the said doctor to know as to what was the disease of which he was suffering from and whether the death was due to the said disease or due to some other cause. Thus, absolutely, there is no material as of now to show that the deceased was suffering from some kind of disease prior to 24.01.1997 and that he died only on that disease.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would take me through the show cause notice as well as the orders passed by the authorities to substantiate his contention that absolutely there is no material to show that the deceased was suffering from such disease. A perusal of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 6091 of 2002 would go to show that this Court found that the principles of natural justice had not been followed by the Chairman, inasmuch as he was not afforded any opportunity to represent the case. Of course, it is true that subsequently, as per the said order, opportunity was given to the Petitioner only to represent. But, even then, the Petitioner was not furnished with copies of the documents, upon which, the Corporation wanted to establish that the deceased was suffering from some disease and that the Petitioner had knowledge of the same. Even before the enquiry and even before this Court, no such material has been placed. This, in my considered opinion, violates one of the facets of principles of natural justice. In effect, I have to hold that without any material on record, in an arbitrary manner, termination has been effected and, therefore, the same needs to be interfered with.
The termination order would go to show that on similar occasions, previously, the claims made under policies witnessed by the Petitioner were also repudiated. In my considered opinion, that cannot be a ground for terminating the Petitioner because they were not incorporated in the show cause notice and there are no details given of those repudiation of claims also.
For all these reasons stated above, in my considered opinion, the impugned order needs to be interfered with and the Writ Petition is found to succeed.
In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order of the first Respondent dated 29.06.2004 stands set aside. No costs.