JUDGMENT :

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

(1) Petitioner has moved this Court, inter alia, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, quashing orders, dated 31.12.2008, 20.11.2018 as well as 20.08.2019, Annexures P-3, P-11 and P-14, respectively, passed by the respondents. A direction has been sought for restoration of agency and for payment of the forfeited renewal commission.

(2) Brief facts may be noticed. Petitioner was working as an agent with Code No.10547175 with Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). He earned different club memberships and his agency was renewed from time to time. In December 2002, petitioner insured a 16 year old boy and an insurance policy of Rs.1 lac was issued on 09.12.2002. The young boy unfortunately expired on 23.12.2002 and the nominee claimed the insurance amount. The claim was repudiated by LIC, as the child was suffering from cancer and was undergoing medical treatment prior to the date of proposal. A show cause notice, dated 23.08.2008, Annexure P-1, was issued to petitioner under Regulation 16 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (for short “1972 Regulations”) for termination of the agency and petitioner submitted a reply, Annexure P-2. By impugned order, dated 31.12.2008, Annexure P-3, petitioner’s agency was terminated. Appeal filed by petitioner was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2018, Annexure P-11, and a memorial submitted by petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 20.08.2019, Annexure P-14.

(3) Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner had been working with LIC from the year 1992 and over the period, he had rendered a meritorious service. He submits that petitioner has secured 700 policies with a sum assured of more than Rs.6 crores in about 16 years of service. Counsel contends that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner had connived with the insured and suppressed his ailment. He emphasized that insured underwent a medical examination from a duly authorized doctor, who also failed to detect that the young boy was suffering from cancer. It is his argument that the lapse, if any, was that of the medical practitioner, but he has not been dis-empanelled by LIC and petitioner’s agency has been wrongly terminated. Counsel asserts that petitioner had made necessary inquiries before selling the policy to the insured. By making a reference to Regulation 15 of 1972 Regulations, he has argued that as there is no allegation of fraud, neither the agency can be terminated, nor can the renewal commission be withheld. He has drawn strength from the observations made by this Court in 

(i) Rajni Damri Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and others , 2013 (2) PLR 623 ;

(ii) Gajender Yadav Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India, Law Finder Doc Id # 1052590; and

(iii) Satyawan Solanki Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, 2019 (3) PLR 204.

(4) Opposing him, Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate appearing with Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate, counsel for the respondents-LIC has urged that petitioner recommended the proposal of Harmandeep Singh on 09.12.2002 along with Agent’s Confidential Report, Annexure R-1, wherein he stated that he knew the life proposed for the last one year and that his general state of health is good. Counsel asserts that on the basis of this report, a policy was issued with the date of commencement as 28.11.2002, but insured expired after 13 days of the issuance of the policy. Counsel states that as it was a case of early death, investigation was carried out and it was found that the life assured was suffering from sinonasal cancer and had taken treatment for the ailment for over two years from Mohan Das Oswal Cancer Hospital, Ludhiana and he was operated upon in July-August, 2000 at PGI, Chandigarh. Counsel stresses that as petitioner acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of LIC, a show cause notice was issued to him and his agency was terminated vide impugned orders.