Central Information Commission
Palle Prasad Babu vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 24 September, 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/2024/111325
Palle Prasad Babu .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
P. B. No. 17, Balasamurdam,
Warangal - 506001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.09.2025
Date of Decision : 24.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.01.2024
CPIO replied on : 05.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 13.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 15.03.2024
Compliance of FA order : NA
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 02.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"Sub: Rejoinder to my application for information dated: 26-06-2023 Page 1 of 7 Earlier I sought information related to 68 policies which were allegedly validated and revived by me along with other information, through my application dated 26-06-2023. But I received information pertains to 3 policies which are not in the above 68 policies. So please furnish information as certified copies pertinent to above 68 policies. In addition to that I hereby request you provide all the relevant documents pertains to the enquiry proceedings of the Officer who faced the enquiry related to the above revival updation and validations as certified copies and also request you to provide other connected papers as certified copies"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 05.02.2024 stating as under:
"The information sought is not maintained as a single record at single point and the information pertaining to 68 policies will not be provided and exempted under section 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005. The relevant documents pertains to the enquiry proceedings of the Officer who faced the enquiry, qualifies as "personal information of the employee". The information sought pertains to the Third Party and invoked section 11 of RTI Act 2005 for seeking the consent to provide the information. The third party has not consented to provide the inform with you. In view of the fiduciary relationship and there is no public interest involved, the sought information is exempted under section 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 15.03.2024, held as under.
"The matter was referred to Branch 653 and Manager (Sales), Warangal Division, being the deemed PIOs, who have informed as under:
Reply- The information sought regarding relevant documents submitted at the time of revival of 68 policies is not separately maintained as a Record in a compiled form, at a single point, as it is not mandated by any statutory requirement or by any law being in force and is not required for day-to-day working of the respondent organization. This office of Public Authority will have to feed in the policy number in the relevant module, trace, collect and collate the information sought, which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization, attracting Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Compiling the information sought for the sake of this RTI Application would amount to creation of a new record, which is not mandated under RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Page 2 of 7 information as defined under Section 2(i) & 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not available and cannot be provided.
Further, had the information sought been available in a compiled form, the information would have been exempt from disclosure, under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005 as the information is held in fiduciary capacity by the respondent organization and under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 as it is personal information of third party (policy holders). It was in this context that the CPIO had invoked Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005 as information of policy holders whose policies were revived, being held in fiduciary capacity by the respondent organization.
Further, the list of 68 policies (two pages) was provided to you during the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against you on 03.02.2023, the certified copy of which is enclosed herewith for ready reference.
The information sought regarding relevant documents pertaining to the enquiry proceedings of the Officer who had revived the above cited policies and faced the enquiry qualifies as "personal information" of the employee during the service tenure of the employee. As such, Section 11 of RTI Act 2005 was invoked to seek consent of the Officer for sharing of information with you. The Officer has not consented for sharing of her personal information with you. In view of the same, the information sought is exempt from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005 being information held in fiduciary capacity by the respondent organization and as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being personal information of Third Party (employee) and cannot be provided without her consent.
However, the broad outcome of the Enquiry conducted and as per Disciplinary Proceedings under rule 39 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) rules, 1960, the Officer was found guilty for the charges levelled against her and Penalty was imposed by the Competent Authority.
In view of the above clarifications given on all the points raised in the appeal, the appeal of Shri Palle Prasad Babu, is, as a consequence, disposed of."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 7Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Ms. Ajitha, CPIO/Manager, appeared through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 12.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that on June 26, 2023, he sought information on 68 policies which were revived allegedly by him and validated. Based on such validations, the agency-ship of the Appellant, who has been working as an agent with LIC of India, was terminated. He pleaded that as an LIC agent, he was not authorized to validate or revive policy records, and hence, the allegation of validating 68 policies is baseless. He sought certified copies of the enquiry proceedings against the officer who was actually competent to validate such revivals. He contended that the PIO's reply dated 05.02.2024, denying information by citing Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j), and 11 of the RTI Act, was unjustified, since, he himself is implicated in the matter and the information cannot be treated as third-party.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 01.09.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case, copy of the same is marked to the Appellant and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"The appellant had sought information to provide the relevant documents pertaining to the 68 policies which were allegedly revived and validated by him and to furnish all the relevant documents related to the enquiry proceedings of the officers who faced the enquiry proceedings related to the above revival updations mentioned in the above 1st point.
On 20.10.2020 a Complaint was booked against Agent Sri Palle Prasad Babu, Agency code no: 04948653 for his alleged involvement in revival of three policies with a clear intention of cheating to get them revived without special reports by placing stamp and putting forged initial of the concerned employee of the Policy Servicing section on the revival papers. An enquiry was conducted on this matter and it was found that there were 68 more Page 4 of 7 policies which were considered for revival and validated by different officers with the involvement of the Agent. Out of these, 57 policies were revived by the same Officer (as stated in the second appeal by the Agent/Appellant) Basing on this disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the agent. Vigilance case no.M1323/R-11692 was booked and enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer appointed by Disciplinary authority. Hearings were conducted on 06.01.2023 & 03.02.2023 with all the involved persons. In the enquiry report dt.07.02.2023, the Enquiry Officer reported that a detailed investigation was conducted into the revivals of Khammam Branch Office and it was observed that 68 policies were revived by the agent without submitting proper revival requirements.
Agent had witnessed claim form B (Medical Attendant's certificate) dt.06.07.2020 in connection with a Death claim under Policy no: 613731011 on the life of Smt. M Mallamma. The Agent had witnessed the signature and identity of the Medical Attendant Dr. Ram Mohan Rao of Govt. Hospital. On enquiry with the hospital authorities, it was confirmed that the said Medical examiner had resigned from service from 01.01.2019 and also his signature was not tallying. As such it is clear that the agent with fraudulent intention had submitted a fake claim form B. Show cause notice was issued to the Agent on 21.03.2023 and the Agent was terminated on 30.05.2023 by Sr. Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) / Warangal Division with an order that the penalty of "Termination of Agency under Regulation 16(1((b) and 16(1) (h) with forfeiture of renewal commission under regulation 19(2) of LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017, be and is hereby imposed on Sri Palle Prasad Babu, LIC Agent, Agency code no: 04948653.
CPIO and FAA had aptly responded to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The information sought regarding relevant documents submitted at the time of revival of 68 policies is not separately maintained as a record in compiled form, at a single point as it is not mandated by any statutory requirement or by any law being in force and is not required for day-to-day working of the respondent organization.
This office of Public Authority will have to feed in the policy number in the relevant module, trace, collect and collate the information sought, which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization, attracting Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Compiling the Page 5 of 7 information sought for the sake of this RTI Application would amount to creation of a new record, which is not mandated under RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the information as defined under Section 2(i) & 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not available and cannot be provided.
Further, had the information sought been available in a compiled form, the information would have been exempt from disclosure, under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005 as the information is held in fiduciary capacity by the respondent organization and under Section 8(1)(J) of RTI Act, 2005 as it is personal information of third party (policy holders). It was in this context that the CPIO had invoked Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 as information of policyholders whose policies were revived, being held in fiduciary capacity by the respondent organization.
Further, the list of 68 policies (two pages) was provided to the appellant during the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against him on 03.02.2023.
The information sought regarding relevant documents pertaining to the Enquiry proceedings of the Officer who had revived the above cited policies and faced the enquiry qualifies as "personal information" of the employee during the service tenure of the employee. As such, Section 11 of RTI Act 2005 was invoked to seek consent of the Officer for sharing of information with the Appellant. The Officer has not consented for sharing of her personal information with the Appellant. In view of the same, the information sought is exempt from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005 being information held in fiduciary capacity by the respondent organization and as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being personal information of Third Party (employee) and cannot be provided without her consent.
Action would be initiated against Employees found guilty under Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) rules, 1960, by the Competent Authority which is an internal matter of the Corporation.
In the light of the above, we humbly request the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to consider the case favourably and to dismiss summarily the second appeal filed by Sri Palle Prasad Babu."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that information sought relates to policyholders' records held in fiduciary capacity Page 6 of 7 by LIC and disclosure thereof would amount to breach of confidentiality. The request for collation of details regarding 68 policies amounts to creation of new information, which is not mandated under the RTI Act. Enquiry proceedings of an employee constitute "personal information" exempt under Section 8(1)(j), disclosure of which requires consent of the concerned employee under Section 11, which has been denied. The CPIO and FAA have adequately dealt with the request within the framework of the RTI Act. The Commission finds that oral as well written submissions made by the Respondent are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and intervention is not warranted in this matter.
The appeal is dismissed 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 LIC of India, Divisional Office, P. B. No. 17, Balasamurdam, Warangal - 506001 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)