Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Smt. G. Vasantha Vs. the Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India
Decided On : Nov-10-2010
Court : Karnataka
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Smt. G. Vasantha Vs. the Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER1', (int) 1 => 'the Disciplinary Authority', (int) 2 => 'LIC of', (int) 3 => 'LIC', (int) 4 => 'Annexure-K.2', (int) 5 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 6 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 7 => 'School', (int) 8 => '7th Std', (int) 9 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules', (int) 10 => 'the Disciplinary Authority', (int) 11 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 12 => '7th Standard', (int) 13 => 'Certificate', (int) 14 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 15 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 16 => 'Transfer Certificate', (int) 17 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations', (int) 18 => 'Regulations', (int) 19 => 'Koilegal', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'Koilegal', (int) 22 => 'Koilegal', (int) 23 => 'Court', (int) 24 => 'LIC', (int) 25 => 'Corporation', (int) 26 => 'the Development Officer', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'the Insurance Company', (int) 29 => 'Court', (int) 30 => 'LIC', (int) 31 => 'Court' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 1 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 2 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 3 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 4 => 'the 'Regulations'' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '10.3.2007', (int) 1 => '15.11.2008', (int) 2 => '3.9.2009', (int) 3 => '1972', (int) 4 => '114/86-87', (int) 5 => '10.3.2007', (int) 6 => '26.10.2006', (int) 7 => 'seven days', (int) 8 => 'April 2007', (int) 9 => 'last month', (int) 10 => '1972', (int) 11 => '10.3.2007', (int) 12 => '1972', (int) 13 => 'more than twenty years', (int) 14 => 'the ten years', (int) 15 => 'about twenty years', (int) 16 => 'about twenty long years', (int) 17 => 'ten long years', (int) 18 => 'about 50 years' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'third', (int) 1 => 'second', (int) 2 => 'first', (int) 3 => 'third', (int) 4 => 'second', (int) 5 => '3rd', (int) 6 => '7th', (int) 7 => '7th' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Annexure-H.', (int) 1 => '7 Std', (int) 2 => 'Sri' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'India', (int) 1 => 'India', (int) 2 => 'Husband', (int) 3 => 'Clause' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '6.1.1987', (int) 1 => 'more than 10', (int) 2 => 'THREE', (int) 3 => 'One', (int) 4 => 'more than about twenty', (int) 5 => '5', (int) 6 => 'one', (int) 7 => 'at least 8th', (int) 8 => 'more than one', (int) 9 => 'less than one', (int) 10 => 'more than 10', (int) 11 => 'three' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Taluk' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => '8th Standard' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '906962', 'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972 - Rule 16(i)(d), 24 ;', 'appealno' => 'WRIT PETITION N0.5786 OF 2010 (GM-RFS)', 'appellant' => 'Smt. G. Vasantha', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Smt. G. Vasantha Vs. the Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India', 'casenote' => '[MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR J.] This writ petition is filed under Articles 22G and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the final order dated 10.3.2007 passed by the R3 vide Annexure-F. The order dated 15.11.2008 passed TO the R2 vide Annexure-H and also that of the order dated 3.9.2009 passed by the R2 vide Annexure-K.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri S. Raju, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri G. Nataraj, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-11-10', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The orders at Annexure-F, H and K, dated 10.3.2007, 15.11.2008 and 3.9.2009 passed by the third respondent-Disciplinary Authority, second respondent and the first respondent, respectively, are called in question in this writ petition. By the order at Annexure-F, the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-Corporation imposed penalty of termination of agency with forfeiture of renewal commission of the petitioner under Rule 16(i)(d) of LIC of India (Agents) Rules, 1972, (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The order at Annexure-F is confirmed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-H. Both the orders are further confirmed by the Chairman of LIC of India under Rule 24 of the Rules, vide Annexure-K.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The records reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Agent of LIC of India on 6.1.1987. She had produced the Transfer Certificate, bearing Admission No. 114/86-87, along with her application praying for agency. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner had been working as agent till 10.3.2007. According to the petitioner, she was instrumental to get policies to the tune of more than 10 Crores for the insurance company and has worked honestly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When the facts stood thus, the petitioner was issued with a notice by the third respondent on 26.10.2006 alleging that the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner along with the application for agency does not match with the School records. Hence, the petitioner was directed to give explanation within seven days Copy of the said notice issued to the petitioner is produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition. The petitioner furnished her explanation as per Annexure-C, dated 15.12.2006 which reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"2. At the time of agency appointment, I do not know any of the regulations of the esteemed organization. I have studied unto 7 Std. But, I did not have my 7th Std. Certificate. My Development Officer Sri S.SJayanna approached me for agency and I have told the same thing. But to disclose a secret, my Development Officer told me to bring any certificates of my family members. To act according to my D.O's words, innocently. I gave my own sister's certificate, and my Development Officer, Sri S.SJayanna to be the chief instigator in any affair in this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. My Husband is retiring from the service in April 2007, and I have THREE daughters. One of my daughter got married last month, second & 3rd daughter are studying. I don't have any other property or income. I am entirely dependent on Insurance commission for all our basic necessities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To make a full and free confession. I have narrated everything to your kind self sir. In these circumstances, I beg your kind self to pardon my mistake, as the act of innocence. And I request your goodse if to continue my agency. I hope my humble request': will be considered on humanitarian grounds,"</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Thereafter a show-cause notice is issued to the petitioner by respondents for holding disciplinary enquiry under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972, the petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice as per Annexure-c. Ultimately the final order came to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority as per Annexure-F, dated 10.3.2007 and consequently, the agency of the petitioner was terminated along with forfeiture of renewal commission. As aforementioned, the order at Annexure-F is confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the Chairman of LIC of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The admission made by the petitioner in Annexure-C, reveals that the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner along with the application for agency belonged to her sister by name Malathi. In her statement of objections at Annexure-C, the petitioner admits the mistake clearly and further submits that she has studied up to 7th Standard. According to her, the mistake was committed by her because of the instigation of the then Development Officer Sri S.SJayanna. Sri S.SJayanna allegedly told the petitioner to furnish her sister's Certificate for getting the agency. Accordingly, the petitioner said to have furnished the Transfer Certificate of her sister.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact at the time of getting the agency, inasmuch as she had furnished the Transfer Certificate of her sister Malathi. Based on the said wrong submission of Transfer Certificate, the action was initiated against the petitioner after more than about twenty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Regulation 5 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (for short hereinafter referred as the 'Regulations') prescribes qualification of agents. Regulation 5(c) of the Regulations reveals that no person shall be appointed as an agent if he has not passed any matriculation examination or an equivalent thereto, in case he is to be appointed in a town or a city with an ascertained population of one lakh or above, and at least 8th Standard in case he is to be appointed at any other place. The proviso to Regulation 5(c) of the Regulations clearly reveals that the competent authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may relax the requirements stipulated in the Clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The agency, in the matter on hand, relates to Koilegal, which is a Taluk place. Nothing is placed before this Court to show that the ascertained population of Koilegal was more than one lakh during the relevant time i.e., at the time of appointing the petitioner as an agent. Even assuming that the ascertained population of Koilegal is less than one lakhs, the required educational qualification is 8th Standard. Admittedly, the petitioner had passed only 7th Standard. However, as aforementioned, the competent authority, in exceptional cases, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, may relax condition specified in Clause. Though there is nothing on record to show that the educational qualification was relaxed in this matter, by the then Officers/competent authority, the Court can presume that the competent authority must have relaxed the qualification in the matter of the petitioner, inasmuch as she was not only as agent, but she was continued for a period of more than twenty years. She has got the business to the tune of more than 10 lakhs in favour of the LIC on getting policies. Absolutely no objection was taken up by any person in respect of the qualification of the petitioner during the ten years. After about twenty years, a notice came to be issued to the petitioner and an enquiry is held against her. Under such circumstances, this Court- wants to take a lenient view in the matter in favour of the petitioner at least to certain extent, inasmuch as she was working for about twenty long years and the Corporation is benefited by the work of the petitioner as she has got the policies for more than ?10 Crores. It is not in dispute by the respondents' counsel that there was no black spot in the working of the petitioner all through as an agent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">li the satisfaction to all the concerned in the respondent-Corporation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is also nothing on record to show that what action is taken against the then Development Officer who was stated to be responsible for inducting the petitioner as an agent. There cannot be any dispute that the Development Officer has to verify the records of the agent a': the time of providing agency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Be that as it may, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders relating to forfeiture of renewal commission of the petitioner are set aside. However, the petitioner is not entitled for her reinstatement into agency. The petitioner has passed 7th Standard and has furnished wrong certificate belonging to her sister to her benefit. Practically she has committed fraud on the Insurance Company. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the penalty of termination of agency need not be interfered with as the same is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the renewal commission earned by the petitioner by getting policies to the LIC for ten long years cannot be forfeited. As aforementioned, the petitioner has worked honestly, and she is now aged about 50 years. It is brought on record that the petitioner has got three daughters. Petitioners husband has retired. Keeping in mind ail these facts and circumstances, in my opinion, this Court thinks it proper to set aside the orders of forfeiture of renewal of commission. Hence, the following order is made:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The impugned orders in so far as they relate to termination of the agency of the petitioner, are confirmed. However, the orders relating to forfeiture of renewal of commission of the petitioner are set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '906962' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Smt. G. Vasantha Vs. the Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER1', (int) 1 => 'the Disciplinary Authority', (int) 2 => 'LIC of', (int) 3 => 'LIC', (int) 4 => 'Annexure-K.2', (int) 5 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 6 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 7 => 'School', (int) 8 => '7th Std', (int) 9 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules', (int) 10 => 'the Disciplinary Authority', (int) 11 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 12 => '7th Standard', (int) 13 => 'Certificate', (int) 14 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 15 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 16 => 'Transfer Certificate', (int) 17 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations', (int) 18 => 'Regulations', (int) 19 => 'Koilegal', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'Koilegal', (int) 22 => 'Koilegal', (int) 23 => 'Court', (int) 24 => 'LIC', (int) 25 => 'Corporation', (int) 26 => 'the Development Officer', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'the Insurance Company', (int) 29 => 'Court', (int) 30 => 'LIC', (int) 31 => 'Court' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 1 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 2 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 3 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 4 => 'the 'Regulations'' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '10.3.2007', (int) 1 => '15.11.2008', (int) 2 => '3.9.2009', (int) 3 => '1972', (int) 4 => '114/86-87', (int) 5 => '10.3.2007', (int) 6 => '26.10.2006', (int) 7 => 'seven days', (int) 8 => 'April 2007', (int) 9 => 'last month', (int) 10 => '1972', (int) 11 => '10.3.2007', (int) 12 => '1972', (int) 13 => 'more than twenty years', (int) 14 => 'the ten years', (int) 15 => 'about twenty years', (int) 16 => 'about twenty long years', (int) 17 => 'ten long years', (int) 18 => 'about 50 years' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'third', (int) 1 => 'second', (int) 2 => 'first', (int) 3 => 'third', (int) 4 => 'second', (int) 5 => '3rd', (int) 6 => '7th', (int) 7 => '7th' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Annexure-H.', (int) 1 => '7 Std', (int) 2 => 'Sri' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'India', (int) 1 => 'India', (int) 2 => 'Husband', (int) 3 => 'Clause' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '6.1.1987', (int) 1 => 'more than 10', (int) 2 => 'THREE', (int) 3 => 'One', (int) 4 => 'more than about twenty', (int) 5 => '5', (int) 6 => 'one', (int) 7 => 'at least 8th', (int) 8 => 'more than one', (int) 9 => 'less than one', (int) 10 => 'more than 10', (int) 11 => 'three' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Taluk' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => '8th Standard' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '906962', 'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972 - Rule 16(i)(d), 24 ;', 'appealno' => 'WRIT PETITION N0.5786 OF 2010 (GM-RFS)', 'appellant' => 'Smt. G. Vasantha', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Smt. G. Vasantha Vs. the Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India', 'casenote' => '[MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR J.] This writ petition is filed under Articles 22G and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the final order dated 10.3.2007 passed by the R3 vide Annexure-F. The order dated 15.11.2008 passed TO the R2 vide Annexure-H and also that of the order dated 3.9.2009 passed by the R2 vide Annexure-K.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri S. Raju, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri G. Nataraj, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-11-10', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The orders at Annexure-F, H and K, dated 10.3.2007, 15.11.2008 and 3.9.2009 passed by the third respondent-Disciplinary Authority, second respondent and the first respondent, respectively, are called in question in this writ petition. By the order at Annexure-F, the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-Corporation imposed penalty of termination of agency with forfeiture of renewal commission of the petitioner under Rule 16(i)(d) of LIC of India (Agents) Rules, 1972, (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The order at Annexure-F is confirmed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-H. Both the orders are further confirmed by the Chairman of LIC of India under Rule 24 of the Rules, vide Annexure-K.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The records reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Agent of LIC of India on 6.1.1987. She had produced the Transfer Certificate, bearing Admission No. 114/86-87, along with her application praying for agency. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner had been working as agent till 10.3.2007. According to the petitioner, she was instrumental to get policies to the tune of more than 10 Crores for the insurance company and has worked honestly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When the facts stood thus, the petitioner was issued with a notice by the third respondent on 26.10.2006 alleging that the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner along with the application for agency does not match with the School records. Hence, the petitioner was directed to give explanation within seven days Copy of the said notice issued to the petitioner is produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition. The petitioner furnished her explanation as per Annexure-C, dated 15.12.2006 which reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"2. At the time of agency appointment, I do not know any of the regulations of the esteemed organization. I have studied unto 7 Std. But, I did not have my 7th Std. Certificate. My Development Officer Sri S.SJayanna approached me for agency and I have told the same thing. But to disclose a secret, my Development Officer told me to bring any certificates of my family members. To act according to my D.O's words, innocently. I gave my own sister's certificate, and my Development Officer, Sri S.SJayanna to be the chief instigator in any affair in this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. My Husband is retiring from the service in April 2007, and I have THREE daughters. One of my daughter got married last month, second & 3rd daughter are studying. I don't have any other property or income. I am entirely dependent on Insurance commission for all our basic necessities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To make a full and free confession. I have narrated everything to your kind self sir. In these circumstances, I beg your kind self to pardon my mistake, as the act of innocence. And I request your goodse if to continue my agency. I hope my humble request': will be considered on humanitarian grounds,"</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Thereafter a show-cause notice is issued to the petitioner by respondents for holding disciplinary enquiry under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972, the petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice as per Annexure-c. Ultimately the final order came to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority as per Annexure-F, dated 10.3.2007 and consequently, the agency of the petitioner was terminated along with forfeiture of renewal commission. As aforementioned, the order at Annexure-F is confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the Chairman of LIC of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The admission made by the petitioner in Annexure-C, reveals that the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner along with the application for agency belonged to her sister by name Malathi. In her statement of objections at Annexure-C, the petitioner admits the mistake clearly and further submits that she has studied up to 7th Standard. According to her, the mistake was committed by her because of the instigation of the then Development Officer Sri S.SJayanna. Sri S.SJayanna allegedly told the petitioner to furnish her sister's Certificate for getting the agency. Accordingly, the petitioner said to have furnished the Transfer Certificate of her sister.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact at the time of getting the agency, inasmuch as she had furnished the Transfer Certificate of her sister Malathi. Based on the said wrong submission of Transfer Certificate, the action was initiated against the petitioner after more than about twenty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Regulation 5 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (for short hereinafter referred as the 'Regulations') prescribes qualification of agents. Regulation 5(c) of the Regulations reveals that no person shall be appointed as an agent if he has not passed any matriculation examination or an equivalent thereto, in case he is to be appointed in a town or a city with an ascertained population of one lakh or above, and at least 8th Standard in case he is to be appointed at any other place. The proviso to Regulation 5(c) of the Regulations clearly reveals that the competent authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may relax the requirements stipulated in the Clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The agency, in the matter on hand, relates to Koilegal, which is a Taluk place. Nothing is placed before this Court to show that the ascertained population of Koilegal was more than one lakh during the relevant time i.e., at the time of appointing the petitioner as an agent. Even assuming that the ascertained population of Koilegal is less than one lakhs, the required educational qualification is 8th Standard. Admittedly, the petitioner had passed only 7th Standard. However, as aforementioned, the competent authority, in exceptional cases, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, may relax condition specified in Clause. Though there is nothing on record to show that the educational qualification was relaxed in this matter, by the then Officers/competent authority, the Court can presume that the competent authority must have relaxed the qualification in the matter of the petitioner, inasmuch as she was not only as agent, but she was continued for a period of more than twenty years. She has got the business to the tune of more than 10 lakhs in favour of the LIC on getting policies. Absolutely no objection was taken up by any person in respect of the qualification of the petitioner during the ten years. After about twenty years, a notice came to be issued to the petitioner and an enquiry is held against her. Under such circumstances, this Court- wants to take a lenient view in the matter in favour of the petitioner at least to certain extent, inasmuch as she was working for about twenty long years and the Corporation is benefited by the work of the petitioner as she has got the policies for more than ?10 Crores. It is not in dispute by the respondents' counsel that there was no black spot in the working of the petitioner all through as an agent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">li the satisfaction to all the concerned in the respondent-Corporation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is also nothing on record to show that what action is taken against the then Development Officer who was stated to be responsible for inducting the petitioner as an agent. There cannot be any dispute that the Development Officer has to verify the records of the agent a': the time of providing agency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Be that as it may, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders relating to forfeiture of renewal commission of the petitioner are set aside. However, the petitioner is not entitled for her reinstatement into agency. The petitioner has passed 7th Standard and has furnished wrong certificate belonging to her sister to her benefit. Practically she has committed fraud on the Insurance Company. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the penalty of termination of agency need not be interfered with as the same is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the renewal commission earned by the petitioner by getting policies to the LIC for ten long years cannot be forfeited. As aforementioned, the petitioner has worked honestly, and she is now aged about 50 years. It is brought on record that the petitioner has got three daughters. Petitioners husband has retired. Keeping in mind ail these facts and circumstances, in my opinion, this Court thinks it proper to set aside the orders of forfeiture of renewal of commission. Hence, the following order is made:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The impugned orders in so far as they relate to termination of the agency of the petitioner, are confirmed. However, the orders relating to forfeiture of renewal of commission of the petitioner are set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '906962' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Smt. G. Vasantha Vs. the Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER1', (int) 1 => 'the Disciplinary Authority', (int) 2 => 'LIC of', (int) 3 => 'LIC', (int) 4 => 'Annexure-K.2', (int) 5 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 6 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 7 => 'School', (int) 8 => '7th Std', (int) 9 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules', (int) 10 => 'the Disciplinary Authority', (int) 11 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 12 => '7th Standard', (int) 13 => 'Certificate', (int) 14 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 15 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 16 => 'Transfer Certificate', (int) 17 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations', (int) 18 => 'Regulations', (int) 19 => 'Koilegal', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'Koilegal', (int) 22 => 'Koilegal', (int) 23 => 'Court', (int) 24 => 'LIC', (int) 25 => 'Corporation', (int) 26 => 'the Development Officer', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'the Insurance Company', (int) 29 => 'Court', (int) 30 => 'LIC', (int) 31 => 'Court' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 1 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 2 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 3 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 4 => 'the 'Regulations'' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '10.3.2007', (int) 1 => '15.11.2008', (int) 2 => '3.9.2009', (int) 3 => '1972', (int) 4 => '114/86-87', (int) 5 => '10.3.2007', (int) 6 => '26.10.2006', (int) 7 => 'seven days', (int) 8 => 'April 2007', (int) 9 => 'last month', (int) 10 => '1972', (int) 11 => '10.3.2007', (int) 12 => '1972', (int) 13 => 'more than twenty years', (int) 14 => 'the ten years', (int) 15 => 'about twenty years', (int) 16 => 'about twenty long years', (int) 17 => 'ten long years', (int) 18 => 'about 50 years' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'third', (int) 1 => 'second', (int) 2 => 'first', (int) 3 => 'third', (int) 4 => 'second', (int) 5 => '3rd', (int) 6 => '7th', (int) 7 => '7th' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Annexure-H.', (int) 1 => '7 Std', (int) 2 => 'Sri' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'India', (int) 1 => 'India', (int) 2 => 'Husband', (int) 3 => 'Clause' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '6.1.1987', (int) 1 => 'more than 10', (int) 2 => 'THREE', (int) 3 => 'One', (int) 4 => 'more than about twenty', (int) 5 => '5', (int) 6 => 'one', (int) 7 => 'at least 8th', (int) 8 => 'more than one', (int) 9 => 'less than one', (int) 10 => 'more than 10', (int) 11 => 'three' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Taluk' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => '8th Standard' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '906962', 'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972 - Rule 16(i)(d), 24 ;', 'appealno' => 'WRIT PETITION N0.5786 OF 2010 (GM-RFS)', 'appellant' => 'Smt. G. Vasantha', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Smt. G. Vasantha Vs. the Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India', 'casenote' => '[MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR J.] This writ petition is filed under Articles 22G and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the final order dated 10.3.2007 passed by the R3 vide Annexure-F. The order dated 15.11.2008 passed TO the R2 vide Annexure-H and also that of the order dated 3.9.2009 passed by the R2 vide Annexure-K.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri S. Raju, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri G. Nataraj, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-11-10', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The orders at Annexure-F, H and K, dated 10.3.2007, 15.11.2008 and 3.9.2009 passed by the third respondent-Disciplinary Authority, second respondent and the first respondent, respectively, are called in question in this writ petition. By the order at Annexure-F, the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-Corporation imposed penalty of termination of agency with forfeiture of renewal commission of the petitioner under Rule 16(i)(d) of LIC of India (Agents) Rules, 1972, (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The order at Annexure-F is confirmed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-H. Both the orders are further confirmed by the Chairman of LIC of India under Rule 24 of the Rules, vide Annexure-K.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The records reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Agent of LIC of India on 6.1.1987. She had produced the Transfer Certificate, bearing Admission No. 114/86-87, along with her application praying for agency. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner had been working as agent till 10.3.2007. According to the petitioner, she was instrumental to get policies to the tune of more than 10 Crores for the insurance company and has worked honestly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When the facts stood thus, the petitioner was issued with a notice by the third respondent on 26.10.2006 alleging that the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner along with the application for agency does not match with the School records. Hence, the petitioner was directed to give explanation within seven days Copy of the said notice issued to the petitioner is produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition. The petitioner furnished her explanation as per Annexure-C, dated 15.12.2006 which reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"2. At the time of agency appointment, I do not know any of the regulations of the esteemed organization. I have studied unto 7 Std. But, I did not have my 7th Std. Certificate. My Development Officer Sri S.SJayanna approached me for agency and I have told the same thing. But to disclose a secret, my Development Officer told me to bring any certificates of my family members. To act according to my D.O's words, innocently. I gave my own sister's certificate, and my Development Officer, Sri S.SJayanna to be the chief instigator in any affair in this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. My Husband is retiring from the service in April 2007, and I have THREE daughters. One of my daughter got married last month, second & 3rd daughter are studying. I don't have any other property or income. I am entirely dependent on Insurance commission for all our basic necessities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To make a full and free confession. I have narrated everything to your kind self sir. In these circumstances, I beg your kind self to pardon my mistake, as the act of innocence. And I request your goodse if to continue my agency. I hope my humble request': will be considered on humanitarian grounds,"</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Thereafter a show-cause notice is issued to the petitioner by respondents for holding disciplinary enquiry under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972, the petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice as per Annexure-c. Ultimately the final order came to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority as per Annexure-F, dated 10.3.2007 and consequently, the agency of the petitioner was terminated along with forfeiture of renewal commission. As aforementioned, the order at Annexure-F is confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the Chairman of LIC of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The admission made by the petitioner in Annexure-C, reveals that the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner along with the application for agency belonged to her sister by name Malathi. In her statement of objections at Annexure-C, the petitioner admits the mistake clearly and further submits that she has studied up to 7th Standard. According to her, the mistake was committed by her because of the instigation of the then Development Officer Sri S.SJayanna. Sri S.SJayanna allegedly told the petitioner to furnish her sister's Certificate for getting the agency. Accordingly, the petitioner said to have furnished the Transfer Certificate of her sister.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact at the time of getting the agency, inasmuch as she had furnished the Transfer Certificate of her sister Malathi. Based on the said wrong submission of Transfer Certificate, the action was initiated against the petitioner after more than about twenty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Regulation 5 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (for short hereinafter referred as the 'Regulations') prescribes qualification of agents. Regulation 5(c) of the Regulations reveals that no person shall be appointed as an agent if he has not passed any matriculation examination or an equivalent thereto, in case he is to be appointed in a town or a city with an ascertained population of one lakh or above, and at least 8th Standard in case he is to be appointed at any other place. The proviso to Regulation 5(c) of the Regulations clearly reveals that the competent authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may relax the requirements stipulated in the Clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The agency, in the matter on hand, relates to Koilegal, which is a Taluk place. Nothing is placed before this Court to show that the ascertained population of Koilegal was more than one lakh during the relevant time i.e., at the time of appointing the petitioner as an agent. Even assuming that the ascertained population of Koilegal is less than one lakhs, the required educational qualification is 8th Standard. Admittedly, the petitioner had passed only 7th Standard. However, as aforementioned, the competent authority, in exceptional cases, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, may relax condition specified in Clause. Though there is nothing on record to show that the educational qualification was relaxed in this matter, by the then Officers/competent authority, the Court can presume that the competent authority must have relaxed the qualification in the matter of the petitioner, inasmuch as she was not only as agent, but she was continued for a period of more than twenty years. She has got the business to the tune of more than 10 lakhs in favour of the LIC on getting policies. Absolutely no objection was taken up by any person in respect of the qualification of the petitioner during the ten years. After about twenty years, a notice came to be issued to the petitioner and an enquiry is held against her. Under such circumstances, this Court- wants to take a lenient view in the matter in favour of the petitioner at least to certain extent, inasmuch as she was working for about twenty long years and the Corporation is benefited by the work of the petitioner as she has got the policies for more than ?10 Crores. It is not in dispute by the respondents' counsel that there was no black spot in the working of the petitioner all through as an agent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">li the satisfaction to all the concerned in the respondent-Corporation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is also nothing on record to show that what action is taken against the then Development Officer who was stated to be responsible for inducting the petitioner as an agent. There cannot be any dispute that the Development Officer has to verify the records of the agent a': the time of providing agency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Be that as it may, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders relating to forfeiture of renewal commission of the petitioner are set aside. However, the petitioner is not entitled for her reinstatement into agency. The petitioner has passed 7th Standard and has furnished wrong certificate belonging to her sister to her benefit. Practically she has committed fraud on the Insurance Company. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the penalty of termination of agency need not be interfered with as the same is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the renewal commission earned by the petitioner by getting policies to the LIC for ten long years cannot be forfeited. As aforementioned, the petitioner has worked honestly, and she is now aged about 50 years. It is brought on record that the petitioner has got three daughters. Petitioners husband has retired. Keeping in mind ail these facts and circumstances, in my opinion, this Court thinks it proper to set aside the orders of forfeiture of renewal of commission. Hence, the following order is made:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The impugned orders in so far as they relate to termination of the agency of the petitioner, are confirmed. However, the orders relating to forfeiture of renewal of commission of the petitioner are set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '906962' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Smt. G. Vasantha Vs. the Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER1', (int) 1 => 'the Disciplinary Authority', (int) 2 => 'LIC of', (int) 3 => 'LIC', (int) 4 => 'Annexure-K.2', (int) 5 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 6 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 7 => 'School', (int) 8 => '7th Std', (int) 9 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules', (int) 10 => 'the Disciplinary Authority', (int) 11 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 12 => '7th Standard', (int) 13 => 'Certificate', (int) 14 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 15 => 'the Transfer Certificate', (int) 16 => 'Transfer Certificate', (int) 17 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations', (int) 18 => 'Regulations', (int) 19 => 'Koilegal', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'Koilegal', (int) 22 => 'Koilegal', (int) 23 => 'Court', (int) 24 => 'LIC', (int) 25 => 'Corporation', (int) 26 => 'the Development Officer', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'the Insurance Company', (int) 29 => 'Court', (int) 30 => 'LIC', (int) 31 => 'Court' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 1 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 2 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 3 => 'Annexure-F', (int) 4 => 'the 'Regulations'' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '10.3.2007', (int) 1 => '15.11.2008', (int) 2 => '3.9.2009', (int) 3 => '1972', (int) 4 => '114/86-87', (int) 5 => '10.3.2007', (int) 6 => '26.10.2006', (int) 7 => 'seven days', (int) 8 => 'April 2007', (int) 9 => 'last month', (int) 10 => '1972', (int) 11 => '10.3.2007', (int) 12 => '1972', (int) 13 => 'more than twenty years', (int) 14 => 'the ten years', (int) 15 => 'about twenty years', (int) 16 => 'about twenty long years', (int) 17 => 'ten long years', (int) 18 => 'about 50 years' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'third', (int) 1 => 'second', (int) 2 => 'first', (int) 3 => 'third', (int) 4 => 'second', (int) 5 => '3rd', (int) 6 => '7th', (int) 7 => '7th' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Annexure-H.', (int) 1 => '7 Std', (int) 2 => 'Sri' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'India', (int) 1 => 'India', (int) 2 => 'Husband', (int) 3 => 'Clause' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '6.1.1987', (int) 1 => 'more than 10', (int) 2 => 'THREE', (int) 3 => 'One', (int) 4 => 'more than about twenty', (int) 5 => '5', (int) 6 => 'one', (int) 7 => 'at least 8th', (int) 8 => 'more than one', (int) 9 => 'less than one', (int) 10 => 'more than 10', (int) 11 => 'three' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Taluk' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => '8th Standard' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '906962', 'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972 - Rule 16(i)(d), 24 ;', 'appealno' => 'WRIT PETITION N0.5786 OF 2010 (GM-RFS)', 'appellant' => 'Smt. G. Vasantha', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Smt. G. Vasantha Vs. the Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India', 'casenote' => '[MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR J.] This writ petition is filed under Articles 22G and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the final order dated 10.3.2007 passed by the R3 vide Annexure-F. The order dated 15.11.2008 passed TO the R2 vide Annexure-H and also that of the order dated 3.9.2009 passed by the R2 vide Annexure-K.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri S. Raju, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri G. Nataraj, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-11-10', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The orders at Annexure-F, H and K, dated 10.3.2007, 15.11.2008 and 3.9.2009 passed by the third respondent-Disciplinary Authority, second respondent and the first respondent, respectively, are called in question in this writ petition. By the order at Annexure-F, the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-Corporation imposed penalty of termination of agency with forfeiture of renewal commission of the petitioner under Rule 16(i)(d) of LIC of India (Agents) Rules, 1972, (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The order at Annexure-F is confirmed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-H. Both the orders are further confirmed by the Chairman of LIC of India under Rule 24 of the Rules, vide Annexure-K.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The records reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Agent of LIC of India on 6.1.1987. She had produced the Transfer Certificate, bearing Admission No. 114/86-87, along with her application praying for agency. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner had been working as agent till 10.3.2007. According to the petitioner, she was instrumental to get policies to the tune of more than 10 Crores for the insurance company and has worked honestly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When the facts stood thus, the petitioner was issued with a notice by the third respondent on 26.10.2006 alleging that the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner along with the application for agency does not match with the School records. Hence, the petitioner was directed to give explanation within seven days Copy of the said notice issued to the petitioner is produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition. The petitioner furnished her explanation as per Annexure-C, dated 15.12.2006 which reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"2. At the time of agency appointment, I do not know any of the regulations of the esteemed organization. I have studied unto 7 Std. But, I did not have my 7th Std. Certificate. My Development Officer Sri S.SJayanna approached me for agency and I have told the same thing. But to disclose a secret, my Development Officer told me to bring any certificates of my family members. To act according to my D.O's words, innocently. I gave my own sister's certificate, and my Development Officer, Sri S.SJayanna to be the chief instigator in any affair in this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. My Husband is retiring from the service in April 2007, and I have THREE daughters. One of my daughter got married last month, second & 3rd daughter are studying. I don't have any other property or income. I am entirely dependent on Insurance commission for all our basic necessities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To make a full and free confession. I have narrated everything to your kind self sir. In these circumstances, I beg your kind self to pardon my mistake, as the act of innocence. And I request your goodse if to continue my agency. I hope my humble request': will be considered on humanitarian grounds,"</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Thereafter a show-cause notice is issued to the petitioner by respondents for holding disciplinary enquiry under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972, the petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice as per Annexure-c. Ultimately the final order came to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority as per Annexure-F, dated 10.3.2007 and consequently, the agency of the petitioner was terminated along with forfeiture of renewal commission. As aforementioned, the order at Annexure-F is confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the Chairman of LIC of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The admission made by the petitioner in Annexure-C, reveals that the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner along with the application for agency belonged to her sister by name Malathi. In her statement of objections at Annexure-C, the petitioner admits the mistake clearly and further submits that she has studied up to 7th Standard. According to her, the mistake was committed by her because of the instigation of the then Development Officer Sri S.SJayanna. Sri S.SJayanna allegedly told the petitioner to furnish her sister's Certificate for getting the agency. Accordingly, the petitioner said to have furnished the Transfer Certificate of her sister.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact at the time of getting the agency, inasmuch as she had furnished the Transfer Certificate of her sister Malathi. Based on the said wrong submission of Transfer Certificate, the action was initiated against the petitioner after more than about twenty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Regulation 5 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (for short hereinafter referred as the 'Regulations') prescribes qualification of agents. Regulation 5(c) of the Regulations reveals that no person shall be appointed as an agent if he has not passed any matriculation examination or an equivalent thereto, in case he is to be appointed in a town or a city with an ascertained population of one lakh or above, and at least 8th Standard in case he is to be appointed at any other place. The proviso to Regulation 5(c) of the Regulations clearly reveals that the competent authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may relax the requirements stipulated in the Clause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The agency, in the matter on hand, relates to Koilegal, which is a Taluk place. Nothing is placed before this Court to show that the ascertained population of Koilegal was more than one lakh during the relevant time i.e., at the time of appointing the petitioner as an agent. Even assuming that the ascertained population of Koilegal is less than one lakhs, the required educational qualification is 8th Standard. Admittedly, the petitioner had passed only 7th Standard. However, as aforementioned, the competent authority, in exceptional cases, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, may relax condition specified in Clause. Though there is nothing on record to show that the educational qualification was relaxed in this matter, by the then Officers/competent authority, the Court can presume that the competent authority must have relaxed the qualification in the matter of the petitioner, inasmuch as she was not only as agent, but she was continued for a period of more than twenty years. She has got the business to the tune of more than 10 lakhs in favour of the LIC on getting policies. Absolutely no objection was taken up by any person in respect of the qualification of the petitioner during the ten years. After about twenty years, a notice came to be issued to the petitioner and an enquiry is held against her. Under such circumstances, this Court- wants to take a lenient view in the matter in favour of the petitioner at least to certain extent, inasmuch as she was working for about twenty long years and the Corporation is benefited by the work of the petitioner as she has got the policies for more than ?10 Crores. It is not in dispute by the respondents' counsel that there was no black spot in the working of the petitioner all through as an agent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">li the satisfaction to all the concerned in the respondent-Corporation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is also nothing on record to show that what action is taken against the then Development Officer who was stated to be responsible for inducting the petitioner as an agent. There cannot be any dispute that the Development Officer has to verify the records of the agent a': the time of providing agency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Be that as it may, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders relating to forfeiture of renewal commission of the petitioner are set aside. However, the petitioner is not entitled for her reinstatement into agency. The petitioner has passed 7th Standard and has furnished wrong certificate belonging to her sister to her benefit. Practically she has committed fraud on the Insurance Company. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the penalty of termination of agency need not be interfered with as the same is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the renewal commission earned by the petitioner by getting policies to the LIC for ten long years cannot be forfeited. As aforementioned, the petitioner has worked honestly, and she is now aged about 50 years. It is brought on record that the petitioner has got three daughters. Petitioners husband has retired. Keeping in mind ail these facts and circumstances, in my opinion, this Court thinks it proper to set aside the orders of forfeiture of renewal of commission. Hence, the following order is made:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The impugned orders in so far as they relate to termination of the agency of the petitioner, are confirmed. However, the orders relating to forfeiture of renewal of commission of the petitioner are set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '906962' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
ORG: ORDER1, the Disciplinary Authority, LIC of, LIC, Annexure-K.2, the Transfer Certificate, the Transfer Certificate, School, 7th Std, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, the Disciplinary Authority, the Transfer Certificate, 7th Standard, Certificate, the Transfer Certificate, the Transfer Certificate, Transfer Certificate, Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, Regulations, Koilegal, Court, Koilegal, Koilegal, Court, LIC, Corporation, the Development Officer, Court, the Insurance Company, Court, LIC, Court
PRODUCT: Annexure-F, Annexure-F, Annexure-F, Annexure-F, the 'Regulations'
DATE: 10.3.2007, 15.11.2008, 3.9.2009, 1972, 114/86-87, 10.3.2007, 26.10.2006, seven days, April 2007, last month, 1972, 10.3.2007, 1972, more than twenty years, the ten years, about twenty years, about twenty long years, ten long years, about 50 years
ORDINAL: third, second, first, third, second, 3rd, 7th, 7th
PERSON: Annexure-H., 7 Std, Sri
GPE: India, India, Husband, Clause
CARDINAL: 6.1.1987, more than 10, THREE, One, more than about twenty, 5, one, at least 8th, more than one, less than one, more than 10, three
NORP: Taluk
LOC: 8th Standard