AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 10.01.2005 and 26.04.2010 at Annexures ''D'' & ''L'' to the petition. In that light the
petitioner is seeking that the respondents be directed to renew the agency and also pay the arrears of the Commission.
The petitioner was appointed as an agent of the respondent - Corporation with effect from 10.01.2002 for a period of three years. During the
said course, he had among others recommended the issue of policy to one Smt.Gowramma. The policy No.722503634 was accordingly issued
with effect from 06.09.2002. Since the policy arose for early claim on 19.11.2002, the respondents have initiated action against the petitioner to
terminate the agency and forfeit the Commission payable. The petitioner was before this Court in an earlier petition in W.P. No.9204/2008. This
Court while disposing of the petition through the order dated 17.04.2009 had remitted the matter to the Chairman to reconsider, since it was
contended that no opportunity even in that process was granted and as such the correctness of the order of competent authority was not
considered. While so remitting, this Court had adverted to the facts and in that light having taken note that the policy holder Smt.Gowramma had
suffered with ''SLE Multi-organ failure'' had also indicated the nature of consideration that was required to be made and the matter was remanded.
The Chairman through the order dated 26.04.2010 has reconfirmed the final order dated 10.01.2005 passed by the competent authority. It is in
that view the petitioner is once again before this Court in this petition.
The respondents having filed their objection statement have sought to reassert their contentions to the effect that the policy had been
recommended by the petitioner despite the petitioner being aware of the illness of the assured and in that light, it is contended that the petitioner
had colluded with the policy holder. Hence, it is contended that the action initiated is justified and the order passed by the original authority as well
as the Chairman is in accordance with law.
In that light, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, as pointed out at the earlier instance this Court through the order dated 17.04.2009
in W.P. No.9204/2008 had remitted the matter without adverting to the correctness or otherwise of the final order dated 10.01.2005, in the
circumstance, where the Chairman has essentially upheld the order dated 10.01.2005 passed by the original authority/competent authority, the
order arises for consideration with regard to its correctness or otherwise, in this petition. In that background a reference to the final order dated
10.01.2005 would disclose that the competent authority while rejecting the explanation put forth by the petitioner in respect of the policy issued to
Smt.Gowramma has stated that the respondents have indisputable evidence to show that the deceased/life assured had pre-insurance illness and
had taken treatment in Hospital about one year 22 days prior to the date of the proposal. Even if the evidence is to the effect that the policy holder
had suffered illness prior to issue of policy, one of the aspects to be considered while initiating action against the petitioner to terminate the agency
on the basis of the evidence the conclusion that was required to be reached is also that the petitioner was aware of the illness or on the other hand
the petitioner had not taken sufficient care to examine these aspects of the matter before recommending the issuance of the policy.
The order dated 10.01.2005 does not indicate that a consideration in this regard has been made, but the Competent Authority has only arrived
at its conclusion to terminate the agency because according to the competent authority the petitioner had not expressed any ill-feeling or remorse at
all. Despite this fact, while arriving at a conclusion to terminate the agency, which would attach a stigma on the petitioner, an appropriate
consideration is required to be made and thereafter come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioner had colluded with the policy holder and a
decision is to be taken on the basis of the material that is available. Though the original authority has not adverted to these aspects of the matter
and has arrived at is conclusion, the Chairman while reconsidering such order has also not adverted to these aspects of the matter but has merely
reiterated what has been stated by the Competent Authority and approved the action.
In that view, the order dated 10.01.2005 at Annexure ''D'' and the order dated 26.04.2010 at Annexure ''L'' are set-aside.
The matter is remitted to the Senior Divisional Manager, Disciplinary Authority to provide opportunity to the petitioner to refer to all aspects of
the matter and reconsider the matter in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above.
Such reconsideration shall be made as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date on which a copy of this order is
furnished.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.