Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the order issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India cancelling the agency issued to the petitioner and forfeiting from the back date his commission. The order was issued on the ground that the proposal which he had made for the life of one Daulat Ram as though he was keeping good health was done by deceit in collusion with the deceased and he had not disclosed the fact that the person was suffering from a heart valve disease for a period of 3 years before his death. The impugned order was pursuant to the disciplinary proceeding of the Senior Divisional Manager, who found him guilty of submitting the proposal for the life of a person who was suffering from triple vessel Disease of the heart and by witnessing the declaration of good health for revival of a policy which had lapsed and thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of Corporation. This order was the subject of an appeal to the Zonal Manager, who was Appellate Authority and he had also observed that the agent had failed to disclose the illness in his confidential report and he had renewed policy which had lapsed only a few months prior to his death. The Appellate Authority had observed that the primary function of an agent is procuring new life business and he was bound to make all reasonable inquiries with regard to the lives to be insured before recommending proposals and that he had failed to gather all relevant information about the life proposed. In a further revision to the Chairman, the decisions have been upheld and while disposing of the memorial submitted to the Chairman, he had observed that no new material had been brought in his memorial to warrant an interference passed by the Senior Divisional Manager of the Zonal Manager. 2. The degree of interference in a writ petition by this Court while examining disciplinary proceedings shall be only in matters where there has been a complete lack of application of mind or a perverse finding which had no basis. 2. The degree of interference in a writ petition by this Court while examining disciplinary proceedings shall be only in matters where there has been a complete lack of application of mind or a perverse finding which had no basis. The finding and the assessment that the agent had been negligent and he had not elicited what he was bound to do, namely, ascertainment of prolonged illness of a person when the proposal had been issued just two months earlier to his death, is not an issue that can be a subject of review before this Court. The issues are wholly factual and I see no scope for interference. It is also an admitted fact that even the claim by the heirs of the policy holder was repudiated and the repudiation was upheld by the Civil Court. 3. The learned counsel seeks for permission to challenge the whole matter afresh in a Civil Court. The decision taken by the authorities in disciplinary proceedings, if that can be at all challenged before the Civil Court, is a matter that shall be left to the decision of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be at liberty to have any other legal redressal if he is so advised, but this direction shall not be construed as making any prima facie observation in his favour. 4. The writ petition is disposed of.