Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mrsharad Kashinath Phatak vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 15 April, 2014

                   Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New 
                                Delhi­110066
                             website­cic.gov.in

                  Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000857/MP
 
Appellant                                  :     Shri Sharad Kashinath 
Phatak, Dombivali
Public Authority               :     NIACL, Mumbai
Date of Hearing                :     15 April 2014 
Date of Decision               :     15 April 2014  

  Facts:­ 

1.    The   appellant,   Shri   Sharad   Kashinath   Phatak,     submitted 
RTI   application   dated   25   October   2012   before   the   Central 
Public   Information   Officer   (CPIO),   New   India   Assurance   Co. 
Ltd.,   Mumbai,   seeking   information   regarding   the   mediclaim 
policy   no.   111700341101000081   of   Smt.   Sandhya   Walawalkar, 
through a total of 5 points.
2.   Vide   reply   dated   22   November   2012,   CPIO   denied 
information sought on the ground that the information related 
to a third party, Mrs. Sandhya Walawalkar and that she had not 
given   her   consent   for   furnishing   the   information.   Not 
satisfied by the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred appeal 
dated 18 December 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). 
Vide order dated 14 January 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO decision 
and also clarified the same in detail.
3.           Not   satisfied   with   the   response   of   the   public 
authority,   the   appellant   preferred   second   appeal   before   the 
Commission   alleging   that   CPIO   had   failed   to   show   any 
supporting   document   to   prove   that   he   had   followed   the 
procedure of S. 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and both the CPIO 
and   FAA   had   wrongly   applied   the   exemption   provisions   in   his 
case.
4.   The   matter   was   heard   today   via   videoconferencing.   The 
appellant,  Shri   Sharad   Kashinath   Phatak,   was   represented   by 
Shri Anant Nandu who made his submissions  from Mumbai.      He 
submitted   a   copy   of   authority   letter   in   this   regard   to   the 
CPIO. The respondents, comprising Shri Ranjit Gangadharan, Dy. 

GM/FAA  and Shri Hitendra Patel, CPIO(RO­I)    made submissions  from Mumbai.   

5.           The   appellant   has   submitted   that   he   had   sought  information  regarding   the   mediclaim   policy   no.  111700341101000081   of   Smt.   Sandhya   Walawalkar   pertaining   to  the   remigration   of   the   mediclaim   policy   allowed   by   the  respondent company in that case. The appellant alleged that he  had been denied the information on the ground that it was a  third party information but the respondent had not shown him  any letter which could prove that they had sought the consent  of   third   party   in   this   case.   The   respondents   submitted   that  there   was   no   record   available   with   them   of   the   policy   no.  which   had   been   mentioned   by   the   appellant   in   his   RTI  application and when they altered the no. they found that it  was that of Smt. Sandhya Walwalkar, who had already taken the  said   information   3   times.   The   appellant   alleged   that   he   was  asking   for   the   same   information   in   public   interest   as   the  remigration of the mediclaim policy of Smt. Sandhya Walwalkar  has been allowed, in the same manner this facility could also  be   provided   to   the   other   policy­holders.   He   added   that   the  Insurance   Regulatory   Development   Authority   circular   on   the  subject was not being followed by the New India Assurance Co.  Ltd.   FAA submitted that in this case Section 8(1)(j) of the  RTI Act, 2005 comes into effect as the information sought was  personal   details   of   the   third   party.   He   also   submitted   that  remigration is allowed on the merits of each case and it was  wrong to say that NIACL was not allowing remigration and such  sweeping   generalization   is   uncalled   for.   He   also   submitted  that is was basically a grievance issue which was being tried  to be resolved through RTI and the respondent company complies  with all the guidelines of the IRDA in this regard.

Decision Notice

6.             The Commission accepts the submissions made by the  respondents.   The   applicant   may   like   to   take   up   his  complaint/grievance   at   the   appropriate   forum.   The   appeal   is  dismissed. 

(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner  Authenticated true copy: 

(T.K. Mohapatra)  Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar  Tele.No. 011­26105027   Copy to: 
Central Public Information Officer  The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,  Mumbai Regional Office  New India Bhavan, 34/38, Bank Street, Fort, Mumba­i400023.
First Appellate Authority  The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,  Regd & Head Office, New India Assurance Bldg., 87, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai.
Shri Shrad Kashinath Phatak, B­7, Somnath Housing Society, Savarkar Road, Near Pitre Building, Phadke Road, Dombivilli (East),  Thane­421201