Central Information Commission
Neena Goyal vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 22 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/LICOI/A/2023/145904
Neena Goyal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Life Insurance Corporation of
India Central Office,'Yogakshema'
Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400021 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.04.2025
Date of Decision : 22.04.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.09.2023
CPIO replied on : 04.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 15.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 31.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.11.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.09.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"I am a widow fighting legal battle to undo injustice done to me on demise of my husband 23 years ago. My late husband's LIC policy of one Page 1 of 6 lakh has been denied to me even though I win in lower forums each time and LIC routinely files appeals to higher Forums The LIC has lastly filed appeal in National Consumer Dispute Redresal Commission in 2018 I have been representing to you for several years without any result In view of the above you are requested to furnish the following information under RTI Act, 1 Total Number of Court cases wherein Policy Amount is less than or is two lakhs 2 Details of all such cases Court wise 3 Details of Cases pending in High Courts/Supreme Court and NCDRC 4 Details of cases under Litigation for more than 5/10/15/20 years 5 Number of cases wherein appeal have been filed by LIC at one stage number of cases wherein appeals have been filed at more than one stage 6 Note sheets with correspondence regarding Revision Petition No 1142of 2018 LIC vs Neena Goyal with names/designation of officers who had taken decision to file appeal 7 Copy of Litigation Policy of LIC against Policy Holders of small amounts You are requested to forward the above information under RTI ACT at your earliest"
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 04.10.2023 stating as under:
"Reply to Query Nos (1), (2), (4) & (5):- The applicant is informed that as the litigations are spread across all over India, the information sought is not readily available with this office of Public Authority. Further, the applicant is informed that the information as requested by the applicant is not compiled as the same does not form part of any regulatory requirement or submission. Collecting and collating the information from offices spread across the country would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority, hence the said information cannot be provided under section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Reply to Query No (3):- In respect of pending High Court Cases the applicant is informed that the litigations pending in High Courts are being dealt by the respective Zones/Zonal Legal Cells/Divisions under the Zones. The information sought is not readily available with this office of Page 2 of 6 Public Authority. However in respect of details of the litigations pending in Supreme Court and NCDRC the applicant is informed that the same cannot be provided as the information sought is exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Reply to Query No (6):- The applicant is informed that the matter is subjudice and hence the information sought is exempted under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Reply to Query No (7):- The applicant is informed that there is no litigation policy of the Corporation against policy holders of small amounts. The Corporation defends the cases in legal fora irrespective of the amount involved in such litigations."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 31.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, authorized representative of the Appellant present in person.
Respondent: Ms. Madhavi Tari, Secretary (RTI) present through Video- Conference.
The authorized representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of the RTI application and instant appeal of the Appellant and submitted that the Respondent has wrongly not provided complete information to the Appellant. He stated that such information can be easily compiled by the Respondent.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"The appellant has sought information regarding 7 queries. CPIO had aptly responded to all the queries, which were upheld by the 1st Appellate Authority. The appellant is informed that information sought vide query nos. (1), (2), (4) & (5) is not readily available with this office of Public Authority as the litigations Page 3 of 6 are spread across all over India, and hence cannot be provided as per section 7(9). As regards query no.(3) the appellant is informed that the information on pending litigations with High Court is not readily available with this office of Public Authority and that the details of cases pending with Supreme courts and NCDRC being Third Party information are exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. 2005. In view of the NEDRC order dated 19/03/2025, wherein the case has been decided in LICs favour, reply to query no.(6) is modified and it is stated that the information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005 as the names and designation of officers who had taken decision to file appeal cannot be disclosed. In respect of query no.(7) we reiterate that there is no litigation policy of the Corporation against policy holders of sinall amounts and that the Corporation defends the cases in legal fora irrespective of the amount involved in such litigations.
The appellant in her second appeal has given suggestions to this Public Authority to improvise the system. The appellant has failed to appreciate the reasons given for not providing the information i.e. the Public Authority does not have the information sought and the CPIO has responded as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. We have to inform that LIC is a Public Sector Insurer and is regulated by the Insurance Act 1938, LIC Act 1956 and IRDAI regulations as amended from time to time. The contract of insurance is a contract of utmost good faith and the proposer has to disclose all the material facts affecting the contract which are within his knowledge at the time of proposing for insurance. The Corporation settles the claim on basis of the terms and conditions of the policy. The repudiation decision is taken after thorough consideration of all the facts and evidence available to us. Again the Corporation has the responsibility to defend its interest where there is material irregularity in the order of lower fora/courts as in the present case.
Also we have to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Commissioner that in the appellants case LIC repudiated claim under her husband's policy no.500887803 under Section 45 of Insurance Act 1938 on the ground of suppression of material facts, wherein the DLA (Deceased Life Assured) had not disclosed the hernia surgery and also the treatment undergone by him prior to commencement of the policy. Aggrieved with the decision of LIC, wife of DLA (appellant) approached the District Forum. The District Forum decided the case against LIC. Against the decision of the District Forum, LIC filed an appeal in the State Consumer Commission. The Sate Commission also failed to take cognizance of the facts and decided the matter against LIC, which necessitated the Corporation to prefer an appeal against the order of State Commission in NCDRC.
Page 4 of 6While upholding our appeal The Hon'ble NCDRC vide its order dated 19/03/2025 has observed that:
"15. In the present case, admittedly the life assured was himself a Doctor by profession. Even his wife i.e. the Complainant-Respondent herself also happens to be a Doctor. It is, therefore, inconceivable how the assured in his proposal form could have described his health condition as good, or denied having undergone any hospitalization or treatment within the specified time in terms of the questions in the proposal form, irrespective of whether or not such treatment (for hernia) could have had any nexus with cause of his actual death in the following months. In essence, the deceased had consciously suppressed about his earlier hospitalization and treatment by giving false answers, and such non-disclosure of correct information and false statements regarding his health condition and medical history would make the insurance contract null and void and violative of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy."
"18. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that both the Ld. Fora below acted with material irregularity in allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent.
19. The Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed after setting aside the Orders passed by both the Ld. Fora below, and the Complaint filed by the Respondent consequently stands dismissed."
We would like to further counter the accusations of the appellant wherein she is making baseless charges accusing LIC of harassing poor customers. LIC has an excellent track record of settling death claims. Hence, there is no question of harassment to claimants."
The Respondent submitted that now at the stage of second appeal, they have uploaded revised point-wise reply as per the RTI application of the Appellant which has already been shared with the Appellant. Further, vide their letter dated 04.10.2023, factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that complete and correct information has not been provided to her by the Respondent within stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that Page 5 of 6 reply was given to the Appellant within time limit as per RTI Act wherein complete factual position was informed to the Appellant.
The Respondent, now at the stage of the second appeal and before the hearing, has placed on record a revised reply in the form of written submissions before the Commission which in view of the Commission is an adequate response to the RTI application.
The said written submissions of the Respondent are being treated as an updated reply to the instant RTI application, which the Respondent has already shared with the Appellant.
No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Office, 'Yogakshema' Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)