Central Information Commission
Supratik Sanatani vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 13 May, 2020
के न्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/OINCL/A/2018/632869/OICOL-BJ
Dr. Supratik Sanatani
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Regional Manager
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
P.Box No. 608, 4 Lyons Range
Kolkata 700001
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.05.2020
Date of Decision : 13.05.2020
Date of RTI application 05.07.2018
CPIO's response 01.08.2018
Date of the First Appeal 06.08.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the copy of Office Order of OICL Company Authorizing their TPAs to deny cashless facility in Hospitals which were not empanelled as PPN Hospitals; details of package for (a) Breast Cancer Surgery and (b) Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer at PPN Hospital M/s Tata Medical Center of New Town Kolkata; copy of written agreement on specific packages for (a) Breast Cancer Surgery and (b) Breast Cancer Radiotherapy between OICL or OICL TPA and Tata Medical Center New Town Kolkata and other issues thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 01.08.2018 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.Page 1 of 5
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Supratik Sanatani through WhatsApp;
Respondent: Mr. Gautam Chakravarty, CPIO and RM through WhatsApp;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the document relied upon by the CPIO in its reply was irrelevant and illegal since General Insurance Public Sector Association (GIPSA) had no legal validity as per the order of the Competition Commission of India in suo moto case number 2 of 2014 which was upheld in Appeal No 97 of 2015 before the Competition Appellate Tribunal. Thus, he prayed to direct the Respondent to provide a clear, cogent and precise response to him. In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that there existed no Office Order of OICL Authorizing their TPAs to deny cashless facility in Hospitals which were not empanelled as PPN Hospitals. However, as resolved by the members of the consortium of General Insurance Companies, the order issued by the National Insurance Co Ltd, the Nodal Insurance Company with respect to the aspect of applicability of PPN Hospitals in Kolkata was followed by them and the copy of the same was also provided to the Appellant. Similarly Heritage TPA was the nodal TPA in Kolkata and they had also issued directives in this regard vide email dated 26.06.2018. On being queried, if they were aware about the decision of the Competition Commission of India/ Competition Appellate Tribunal cited by the Appellant, the Respondent replied in the negative but submitted that the subject matter for adjudication in the instant matter differed from the disputes before the Competition Commission of India/ Competition Appellate Tribunal and that they had provided the information as held and available with them.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 05.05.2020 wherein it was stated that from July, 2018, the TPA of Oriental Insurance Company started denying cashless service to its insured in network hospitals which were not PPN enlisted. The RTI request dated 12.07.2018 sought a copy of such order. In case no such order was served he wanted the CPIO to clearly state that no such order had been issued. The reply from the concerned CPIO of 1/8/2018 was evasive and did not supply any order of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd but supplied the order of another insurance company and enclosed the minutes of General Insurance Public Sector Association GIPSA. This association had no legal validity as clearly stated in the order of Competition Council of India in suo moto case number 2 of 2014 which ruled that all PSU General Insurance Companies are individual corporate entities and imposed a fine of Rs 100.56 crores to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd for violation of the Competition Act. This order was upheld in the appeal no 97 of 2015 before the Competition Appellate Tribunal with modification of the quantum of compensation. Therefore the order of GIPSA is not relevant to my RTI request and makes the reply evasive. I have not received any reply or relief in response to my duly lodged first appeal under the rules made the First Appellate Authority on 6/8/2018.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 08.05.2020 wherein while re-iterating the reply of the CPIO, it was stated that the First Appeal was replied vide letter dated 27.09.2018 wherein it was stated that the National Insurance Co Ltd having its Headquarters at Kolkata was the Nodal Insurance Company with respect to the aspect of applicability of PPN Hospitals in Kolkata on behalf of the PSU General Insurance Companies.Page 2 of 5
For this reason NICL was issuing directives in this regard, Similarly Heritage TPA was the nodal TPA in Kolkata and they had also issued directives in this regard vide email dated 26.06.2018. Under these circumstances Oriental Insurance was bound by the directives of the Nodal Insurance Company and the TPAs by the Nodal TPA.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of Page 3 of 5 the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) Page 4 of 5 whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission) (Bimal Julka) (बिमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त( Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.िास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] निनांक / Date: 13.05.2020 Page 5 of 5