Central Information Commission
Chitra Bhargava vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 11 November, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीयअपीलसंख्या/Second Appeal No.CIC/LICOI/A/2021/118497
Ms. Chitra Bhargava ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ...प्रनतवािी/Respondent
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Divisional Office-1, Jeevan Prakash
Bhavani Singh Road, PB No. 65
Jaipur-302005
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 03-12-2020 FA : 13-01-2021 SA : 05-05-2021
CPIO : 15-12-2020 FAO : 28-01-2021 Hearing: 03-11-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The appellant seeking information as under:-
Page 1 of 42. The CPIO vide letter dated 15-12-2020 had denied the information as sought by the appellant u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 13-01-2021and requested that the information should be provided to her. The FAO vide order dated 28-01-2021 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. She has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to herand requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant appeared through her representative, Shri K.M Bhargav through video conferencing. The respondent, Shri Jambhu Kumar Jain, CPIO and Manager (CRM), LIC also appeared through video conferencing.
4. The appellant has submitted his written submission vide letter dated 27.10.2022 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that the she had sought details pertaining to hereditary commission of her deceased mother, Late Smt. Sheela Bhargav from the respondent. Dissatisfied from the information provided to her by the respondent, she filed the instant appeal. The appellant urged the respondent to supply the information on the ground that she was the Legal Heir (Class-I) of the account holder.
6. Per contra, the respondent submitted that the appellant was not the nominee as per records, hence, the desired information could not be shared with the appellant as it was expressly barred by the provisions of Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He further added that in the revised reply dated 27.01.2021 he has furnished complete information except the disclosure of which is statutorily barred to the appellant.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant although is the legal heir of account holder, however, she is not the nominee as per records. It is a settled law that pursuant to the nomination by the deceased during his lifetime, the nominee acts as the trustee and custodian of the insurance claim. Consequently, the details of hereditary commission can only be shared with the nominee of account holder and not with any third party unless public interest is involved.
8. The Commission is of the view that sharing of such information with the appellant is ultra-vires the provisions of RTI Act as the desired information is Page 2 of 4 "personal information" exempted under Section-8(1)(e) and Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
9. It is trite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, W.P.(C) 1243/2011 wherein the expression "personal information" has been defined as under:
"The expression "personal information" used in Section 8(1)(j) means information personal to any "person", that the public authority may hold. For instance, a public authority may in connection with its functioning require any other person to provide information which may be personal to that person. It is that information, pertaining to that other person, which the public authority may refuse to disclose, if the information sought satisfies the conditions set out in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act, i.e., if such information has no relationship to any public activity (of the person who has provided the information, or who is the source of the information, or to whom that information pertains), or to public interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual (unless larger public interest justifies disclosure)."
10. In view of the above ratio, the Commission is of the opinion that the reply provided by the respondent is satisfactory and same is being upheld by the Commission.
11. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकुमारगुप्ता)
Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त)
निनां क / Date : 03-11-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानितसत्यानपतप्रनत)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Divisional Office-1, Jeevan Prakash
Bhavani Singh Road, PB No. 65
Jaipur-302005
2. Ms. Chitra Bhargava
81/208, Udya Marg, Pratap Nagar
Sanganer, Jaipur-302030
Page 4 of 4