Central Information Commission
Ravi Agrawal vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 27 June, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2018/611292-BJ
Mr. Ravi Agrawal
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Chief (RTI), LIC of India
Central Office, Yogakshema
Jeevan Bima Marg, West Wing
Mumbai - 400021
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.06.2019
Date of Decision : 27.06.2019
Date of RTI application 02.12.2017
CPIO's response 09.12.2017
Date of the First Appeal 19.01.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 31.01.2018
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 number of policies of Jeevan Aadhar which had been issued since the inception of the Jeevan Aadhar Policy along with the details of policy amount; number of policies completed in premium paying term along with the policy amount; the number of cases in which the LIC started the annuity along with the policy amount of such policies, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.12.2017 stated that the information sought by the Appellant was not clear and specific as per Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, hence the same could not be provided. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 31.01.2018 while referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors and the decision of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2012.000628 dated 16.07.2012, upheld the CPIO's response.Page 1 of 6
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ravi Agrawal through VC;
Respondent: Mr. K. K. Jha, Chief RTI & CPIO, Mumbai and Mr. Sunandan, Dy. Secretary (RTI) through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that although he had received partial information after filing of the First Appeal, information relating to number of cases in which the LIC started the Annuity along with the policy amount remained unanswered. It was further articulated that it was a matter of larger public interest as the maintenance and livelihood of disabled persons was at stake and especially mentally challenged people who could not read, write or understand. Therefore, he desired that the information sought should be disclosed to him. He further reiterated his written submission. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil, wherein it was submitted that the information sought was denied by the CPIO on false grounds and only after filing of first Appeal, partial information was furnished. It was further submitted that Respondent had informed the number of policies issued, which was being issued all over India but the Respondent denied to inform about the number of cases in which LIC was paying the annuity, which was being approved and sanctioned at the Head Office Level of the LIC. He further submitted that the LIC had provided the information of policies which was being created at branch level in all over India and contrarily denied the information which was being generated at the Head Office Level of the LIC itself. This argument could not be accepted as all the working of the LIC, from creation of LIC Policy to payment of claim, was computerized. Moreover, the LIC of India was issuing Jeevan Aadhar policy for the maintenance and livelihood of disabled children. But after paying full premium term, when the parent approaches the LIC for the starting of annuity for disabled dependent, the LIC informed that the annuity would be started only after their death. As the disabled person, especially mentally retired person who could not read, write and understand, could not claim the Annuity after the death of his parent, the amount of premium would be forfeited by the LIC instead of paying premium to the disabled person. Therefore, it was requested to direct the Respondent to provide the relevant information in the interest of public so that the public could be made aware of the curse of this policy.
In its reply, the Respondent while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, submitted that at the first appeal stage, the Appellate Authority had provided the information for query no. 01 wherein it was informed that since inception of LIC's Jeevan Aadhar Plan, a total of 27302 policies have been issued with sum assured of Rs. 518.04 crore and upheld the decision of the CPIO for other queries. Moreover, the information sought under point no. 06 was vague in nature. Hence, a suitable reply was provided accordingly. It was further submitted that the data/record was not available with them at the Head Office, as it was scattered in various offices hence collecting and collating the information from 113 Divisional Offices and 2048 Branch Offices of the LIC, would amount to create of a new record and will result in disproportionate diversion of the limited resources of the Public Authority as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the compilation of data/records would be definitely detrimental to public interest as it would put undue strain upon the limited resources of the Public Authority. With regard to point 06 of the Second Appeal, it was further clarified that the Annuity would be paid after the death of the policyholder. The Respondent further emphasized that the information as available with the Public Authority had already been provided to the Appellant and creation would amount to disproportionate diversion of resources. On being queried by the Commission, Page 2 of 6 whether similar information if sought by the Member of Parliament could be denied, the Respondent submitted that the information being scattered in various offices, collecting and collating the same from its 2048 Branch Offices of the LIC spread across India would amount to disproportionate diversion of resources of the Public Authority. Nonetheless, they would collect the same for placing it before the Parliament.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 17.06.2019, wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, relied upon the decision cited by the Commission in the decision of Board of Sec. Education & Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. Appeal No. 6454 of 2011. It was further prayed to the Commission to consider their submission and dismiss the Appeal filed by the Appellant summarily.
A reference was also made by the Respondent to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Ravi Agrawal vs. Union of India and Another, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1107 of 2017 dated January 03, 2019 wherein it was held as under:-
"22) The petitioner may be justified in pointing out that there could be harsh cases where handicapped persons may need the payment on annuity or lumpsum basis even during the lifetime of their parents/guardians. For example, where guardian has become very old but is still alive, though he is not able to earn any longer or he may be a person who was in service and has retired from the said service and is not having any source of income. In such cases, it may be difficult for such a parent/guardian to take care of the medical needs of his/her disabled child. Even when he/she has paid full premium, the handicapped person is not able to receive any annuity only because the parent/guardian of such handicapped person is still alive. There may be many other such situations. However, it is for the Legislature to take care of these aspects and to provide suitable provision by making necessary amendments in Section 80DD of the Act. In fact, the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has also felt that like other police holders, Jeevan Aadhar policy should also be allowed to mature after 55 years of age of the proposer and the annuity amount should be disbursed through the LLCs or National Trust."
"23) In the aforesaid circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition by urging upon respondent No.1 to have a relook into this provision by taking into consideration all the aspects, including those highlighted by the Court in this judgment, and explore the possibility of making suitable amendments."
Attention of the Commission was also drawn by the Respondent towards the letter of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (TPL Division) dated 14th November, 2007 addressed to the Executive Director (Actuarial), Life Insurance Corporation of India wherein with regard to amendment in Jeevan Aadhar Plan - Scheme for the exclusive benefit of handicapped dependent, it was informed that "the requests made by the LIC, Mumbai had been considered in the last budgetary exercise and was not found to be acceptable". Consequently, the Executive Director (CRM) vide its letter dated January 24th, 2008 addressed to All Zonal Managers, All Sr. Divisional Managers, ZTC, MDC, Audit & Inspection, informed that "any change in the benefit structure of the plan requires the prior approval of CBDT, New Delhi, so that policyholders continue to enjoy tax benefit under their policies. Number of representations were received from various quarters for allowing annuity payments for the disabled dependent to start before the death of the subscribing parent. A request was made to Page 3 of 6 CBDT, New Delhi to allow annuity payment under Jeevan Aadhar plan to commence after a certain age of the parent subscriber such as 55, 58 or 60 years. In response, CBDT had informed vide their letter dated 14.11.2007 that the request had been considered in the last budgetary exercise and was not found to be acceptable. Hence, no benefit can be paid to the disabled dependent under the policy till the proposer survives.
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 and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), 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."
Page 4 of 67. "....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 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."
With regard to larger public interest involved in the matter, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest"
held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."Page 5 of 6
Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 dated 10.05.1995 had held as under:
"Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acts give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of criticality and sensitivity of the subject matter, the Commission directs the Respondent Public Authority to take cognizance of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1107 of 2017 dated January 03, 2019 and initiate suitable necessary action accordingly.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 27.06.2019
Copy to:
1. The Secretary, Department of Financial Services, 3rd floor Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, Delhi 110001
2. The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, 'Yogakshema', Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Page 6 of 6