Antony P. Mathew vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

P.D. Rajan, J.—The petitioner challenges the termination of his L.I.C. agency and no disbursement of renewal commission by the Life Insurance Corporation of India in this Writ Petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, and seeks the following reliefs:

"i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext. P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to cancel the termination of agency of the petitioner and direct the respondent to reinstate his agency and to pay the commission payable to the petitioner on the premium received by the Corporation in spite of the business secured by the petitioner as an agent of the Corporation.

iii) declare that termination of the agency of the petitioner is null and void and the petitioner is entitled to continue as an agent of the Corporation;

iv) grant such other reliefs as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petitioner was an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) Taliparamba Branch (Code No. 1310072) since 1977, but his agency was terminated on 1.11.1990, on the ground that he has not completed the minimum business stipulated by the Regulation 1972, in the agency year ending 31.10.1990. Agents are appointed by the Corporation under Regulation 6 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations 1972), which was framed by the Corporation under S. 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956, (XXXI of 1956) with the previous approval of the Central Government. The petitioner contended that in O.P. No. 18436/1995, this Court quashed the termination order issued by the 2nd respondent and directed him to consider it afresh, but even after that direction the 2nd respondent terminated the agency and withheld the renewal commission.

The first argument of the respondents was that the petitioner could not bring minimum business required under Regulations 1972, and therefore his agency was terminated. The second argument is that the Divisional Officer, L.I.C. of India, Kozhikode issued a policy to one Sri. P.I. Issac from Taliparamba (policy No. 790022595 dated 5.3.1990), and on verification, it was detected that the petitioner fraudulently obtained the specimen signature of the policy holder and managed to get it attested by the Development Officer on 19.3.1990, after the death of the policy holder. Since the petitioner played a fraud on the respondent company, he is not entitled to get any renewal commission, under Regulation 19(1) of Agents Regulation 1972.

While adverting to the first contention, it is better to refer Regulations 13, 15 and 16 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents Regulation), 1972 with regard to termination of agency. Regulations 13 and 15 read as follows:

"13. Termination of agency on cancellation of, or failure to renew licence.-If the licence of an agent is cancelled or is not renewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Insurance Act, his appointment as agent shall stand terminated from the date the licence is cancelled or, as the case may be, from the date the licence ceases to be valid:

Provided that if the licence of the agent is restored or renewed, the competent authority shall, without prejudice to the provisions of regulation 16, reinstate the agency.

Termination of agency on account of certain disqualifications.-

If an agent-

(a) is found to be of unsound mind by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

(b) is found to be guilty of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust or cheating or forgery or an abetment of or attempt to commit any such offence by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

(c) in any judicial proceeding, has been found to have knowingly participated in, or connive at any fraud, dishonesty or misrepresentation against the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries or against any person having official dealings with the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, his appointment shall be liable to be terminated without notice and the competent authority shall forthwith terminate his appointment".

Certain grounds for termination of agency on certain lapses are also explained under Regulation 16, which reads as follows:

"Termination of agency for certain lapses.--(1) The competent authority may, by order, determine the appointment of an agent-

(a) if he has failed to discharge his functions, as set out in Regulation 8, to the satisfaction of the competent authority.

(b) if he acts in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation or to the interests of its policy holders;

(c) if evidence comes to its knowledge to show that he has been allowing or offering to allow rebate of the whole or any part of the commission payable to him;

(d) if it is found that any averment contained in his agency application or in any report furnished by him as an agent in respect of any proposal is not true;

(e) if he becomes physically or mentally incapacitated for carrying out his functions as an agent;

(f) if he being an absorbed agent on being called upon to do so, fails to undergo the specified training or to pass the specified tests, within three years from the date on which he is called upon:

Provided that the agent shall be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such termination.

(2) Every order of termination made under sub-regulation (1) shall be in writing and communicated to the agent concerned.

(3) Where the competent authority proposes to take action under sub-regulation (1) it may direct the agent not to solicit or procure new life insurance business until he is permitted by the competent authority to do so".

Regulation 17 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents Regulation), 1972 reads as follows:

"17. Termination of agency by notice.--(1) The appointment of an agent may be terminated by the competent authority at any time by giving him one month''s notice thereof in writing.

(2) An agent may, by giving one month''s notice in writing to the competent authority, discontinue his agency and after the expiry of the period of one month his agency shall stand terminated."

The substance in the above Regulations are very material in the context of the allegations in this case. The Regulations express that a prudent agent, while collecting the premium, determines that he will take risk and therefore, there are no circumstances of mala fides in his conduct while working for the Corporation. Under Regulation 15, the termination of an agency without notice on account of certain disqualification came into effect, if an agent is found to be of unsound mind by a court of competent jurisdiction or secondly, he is found to be guilty of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust or cheating or forgery or an abetment of or attempt to commit such offence by a Court of competent jurisdiction, thirdly he has been found to have knowingly participated in or connived at any fraud, dishonesty or misrepresentation against the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries in any judicial proceeding, his appointment as an agent shall be liable to be terminated without notice and the competent authority shall forthwith terminate the appointment. Regulation 16(1) empowers the competent authority to terminate the agency for certain lapses under clauses (a) to (f) after giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause to such agents. Every order shall be made in writing and communicated to the agent under Regulation 16(2). Termination of agency by one month''s notice is explained under Regulation 17. According to Regulation 3(e), competent authority is specified in column (3) of Schedule I, who controls agents, their nature of functions according to the corresponding regulations specifically mentioned therein.

The main thrust of argument of petitioner is that Ext. P1(1) termination notice was issued on 9.11.1990. He sent Ext. P1(2) representation to the 2nd respondent in which he explained that he had completed the guaranteed business in time. It is true that the petitioner had to bring the minimum business required under Regulation 9 of the Agent''s Regulations 1972. But during the agency period ending 31.10.1990, the petitioner failed to bring the minimum business required under the Regulation, is a fact and therefore, he was terminated by order dated 9.1.1990. No materials are produced before this Court or the competent authority to prove that he had completed minimum business as required. An agent shall solicit and procure new life insurance business which shall not be less than the minimum prescribed in the Regulations. If an agent fails to bring in the minimum business as required under Regulation 9, in an agency year, his appointment shall be terminated at the end of such agency year. A positive approach has been made by the Corporation while passing the termination of the agency, which is in accordance with the statutory directions and in compliance of natural justice. Hence, I reject the first contention.

Regulation 19(1) of the Life Insurance Agency Regulations 1972, says about the payment of commission on discontinuance of agency. But the termination of the appointment of an agent, is on the ground of fraud, the commission on the premiums received in respect of the business secured by the agent shall be discontinued. It reads as follows:

"19. Payment of commission on discontinuance of agency.-(1) In the event of termination of the appointment of an agent, except for fraud, the commission on the premiums received in respect of the business secured by him shall be paid to him if such agent-

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

However, an insurer is entitled to termination of agency on account of misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, dishonesty or misrepresentation against the Corporation but continue to pay agents commission. Payment of commission to the agent shall be discontinued on the ground of fraud under Regulation 19(1). But fraud is not defined in the Regulation. S. 17 of the Indian Contract Act defines fraud as an act committed by a party to a contract with an intention to deceive another.

Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, explained fraud in paragraph 8 as follows:

.............A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another''s loss. It is a cheating intended to got an advantage.

Apex Court in Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. M/s. Shaw Brothers,

"Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton''s sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, ''wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares''. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster''s Third New International Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black''s Legal Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury''s Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. S. 17 of the Contract Act defines fraud as act committed by a party to a contract with intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of deliberate active role of representator about a fact which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case what constitutes fraud was described thus: (All ER p. 22 B-C).

"Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false."

But fraud in public law is not the same as fraud in private law. Nor can the ingredients which establish fraud in commercial transaction be of assistance in determining fraud in Administrative Law. It has been aptly observed by Lord Bridge in Khawaja that it is dangerous to introduce maxims of common law as to effect of fraud while determining fraud in 554 relation to statutory law. In Pankaj Bhargava it was observed that fraud in relation to statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provisions of a statute. "If a statute has been passed for some one particular a purpose, a court of law will not countenance any attempt which may be made to extend the operation of the Act to something else which is quite foreign to its object and beyond its scope." Present day concept of fraud on statute has veered round abuse of power or mala fide exercise of power. It may arise due to overstepping the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting subterfuge or the power may be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law, as it is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises from a deception committed by disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have been exercised. That is misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions provided in a section on existence or non-existence of which power can be exercised. But non-disclosure of a fact not required by a statute to be disclosed may not amount to fraud. Even in commercial transactions nondisclosure of every fact does not vitiate the agreement. "In a contract every person must look for himself and ensures that he acquires the information necessary to avoid bad bargain." In public law the duty is not to deceive. For instance non-disclosure of any reason in the application under S. 21 of the Act about its need after expiry of period or failure to give reason that the premises shall be required by son, daughter or any other family member does not result in misrepresentation or fraud. It is not misrepresentation under S. 21 to state that the premises shall be needed by the landlord after expiry of the lease even though the premises in occupation of the landlord on the date of application or, after expiry of period were or may be sufficient. A non-disclosure of fact which is not required by law to be disclosed does not amount to misrepresentation. S. 21 does not place any positive or comprehensive duty on the landlord to disclose any fact except that he did not need the premises for the specified period. Even the Controller is not obliged with a pro-active duty to investigate. Silence or non-disclosure of facts not required by law to be disclosed does not amount to misrepresentation. Even in contracts it is excluded as is clear from explanation to S. 17 unless it relates to fact which is likely to affect willingness of a person to enter into a contract. FRAUD or misrepresentation resulting in vitiation of permission in context of S. 21 therefore could mean disclosure of false facts but for which the Controller would not have exercised jurisdiction.

After eight months of the termination of the agency, it was noticed by the Corporation, Kozhikode Division that, on 5.3.1990, the petitioner had witnessed the signature of one Sri. P.I. Issac, holder of Policy No. 790022595 declaring that he was enjoying good health, actually Sri. Issac was undergoing treatment for Brain Tumor at Sri Chithira Thirunal Institute for Medical Science and Technology, Trivandrum and died on 11.3.1990. The Corporation verified the signature of Sri. Issac in the declaration which was not tallying with his original signature in the records and on enquiry it was revealed that the Petitioner fraudulently managed to get the specimen signature attested by the Development Officer. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under R. 19(1) of the Agents Rules, 1972 on the ground of fraud and renewal commission was forfeited. By Ext. P3 judgment, this Court directed the Senior Divisional Manager to reconsider the forfeiture of renewal commission after hearing the petitioner, but, as far as the termination of the agency is concerned, the same was upheld by this Court. Exts. P1(3) and P1(5) are the representations to 3rd respondent. Ext. P1(6) is the communication issued by the 2nd respondent on 23.9.1991 to the petitioner about the policy issued to P.I. Issac. Ext. P1(7) is the explanation submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Ext. P1(8) is the letter sent by the 1st respondent to the petitioner dated 10.9.1992. After getting the above letter, the petitioner sent Ext. P1(9) legal notice to the 2nd respondent on 22.1.1995. Ext. P1(10) is the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent, in which the fraudulent conduct of the petitioner was explained. Ext. P1(11) is the reply to the legal notice sent by the 1st respondent to the petitioner on 14.2.1994. Ext. P1(12) is the lawyer notice dated 18.2.1995 to the Zonal Manager and Ext. P1(13) is the copy of the reply notice dated 28.4.1995. Ext. P1(14) is the proceedings of L.I.C. Kozhikode dated 2.8.1995.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in V. Balakrishna Reddiar Vs. Branch Manager, LIC of India and Others, , in which it is held that ''Forfeiture of renewal commission can be done, only if fraud is unearthed in judicial proceedings''. He also relied on the decisions in Bishundeo Narain and Another Vs. Seogeni Rai and Jagernath, , Union of India (UOI) Vs. Chaturbhai M. Patel and Co., and M.D. Souza Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another, . The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decisions in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , Indian National Congress (I) Vs. Institute of Social Welfare and Others, and Indian Bank Vs. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., . But the above decisions have no relevancy with the facts of the case, hence I discard those decisions.

Petitioner relied on the judicial pronouncement in Balakrishna Reddiar''s case (supra), in which it was held that forfeiture of renewal commission can be done, only if fraud is unearthed in judicial proceedings. I wish to add that there is, to my mind, danger in considering the above proposition because the actual narration of facts discloses actual fraudulent act committed by the agent. The fact that the furnishing of false details in the policy renewal application, obtaining forged signature and later fraudulently managing to get the signature attested by Development Officer after the death of the policy holder, reveal the fraudulent conduct of the Agent, which was earthed out by the officers of the Corporation. There are relevant facts for concluding fraud. Hence, I wish to express my disagreement with the conclusion expressed in Balakrishna Reddiar''s case (supra). From a reading of the regulation and its purpose, one can understand that an agent has to keep utmost good faith in his business with Corporation.

The Division Bench of this Court in V. Balakrishna Reddiar Vs. Branch Manager, LIC of India and Others, disagreed with the single Judge''s view and held as follows: (Full text of para 4 of judgment in W.A. No. 2876 of 2007 dtd. 6.7.2009)

"..........Thus, an agency can be terminated under Rr. 15, 16 and 17. The termination under R. 17 will not disqualify the agent from receiving the commission. The cases covered by R. 15(b) and (c) must normally disentitle the agent to get commission, as most of those cases will come under various shades of fraud, in appropriate cases, an agent terminated under R. 16 may be guilty of fraud and therefore, disentitled to get commission under R. 19(1). Going by the scheme of the above Rules, we feel that only if an agent is found to have committed fraud by a competent court, the forfeiture of commission on premium is permissible, is not the correct legal position. Even if the Corporation finds that the agent has committed fraud and therefore terminated the agency under R. 16, the commission on premium can be denied."

Considering the nature of the L.I.C. Act 1956 and Regulation 1972, the ratio settled by the Division Bench is more admissible. The agents are normally appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation in a place for the purpose of soliciting or procuring life insurance business for the Corporation. Appointments are made by the competent authority after conducting a detailed interview of the candidates and satisfying itself about their suitability. The competent authority mentioned in Regulation 3(1)(e) has the power to assess the ability, performance and his conduct in the business according to Schedule I of the Regulations while continuing as an agent. If any lapses from the side of the agent is detected, the competent authority has the power to terminate his agency with or without notice as stated under Regulations 15 and 16. Therefore, the agent is entitled to get the benefit stated under Regulation 19(1) except fraud. Actually fraud is not defined in the L.I.C. Regulations 1972 or in the L.I.C. Act. From the nature of statute, a domestic enquiry as stated by the competent authority is permissible for detecting the fraud. If that be the position, if any fraud is detected, the competent authority under Schedule I can conduct an enquiry for detecting fraud. If fraud is properly proved in an enquiry by competent authority, the Corporation can dispense with the agents renewal commission. The power under Regulation 19(1) of Regulations 1972 can be exercised in a domestic enquiry and no harm in withholding renewal commission. Therefore, there is no merit in this Writ Petition and I fully agree with the findings of the Senior Divisional Manager in dispensing the renewal commission under Regulation 19(1) and this Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.