Central Information Commission
Maniram Sahu vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 4 November, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001185
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001186
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001187
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001188
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001189
Appellant : Shri Maniram Sahu, Mahasamund
Public Authority : LIC of India, Raipur
Date of Hearing : October 21, 2016
Date of Decision : October 25, 2016
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Ms Roja Das, Manager, CRM and Shri Sanjay Kumar, AO,
CRM - through VC
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001185
RTI application : 08.01.2016
CPIO's reply : 08.02.2016
First appeal : 15.02.2016
FAA's order : 18.03.2016
Second appeal : 11.05.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Maniram Sahu, the appellant, sought attested copy of the direction/instructions issued by the competent authority in pursuance of which the documents required for the payment of death claims, such as P.M. report, death intimation, death certificate, etc. were to be certified/ attested by the issuing authority.
2. The CPIO intimated the appellant that information sought by him was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that the desired information had been denied to him by the CPIO taking exemption u/s 8(1)(d), (e), (g) and (j) and he wanted this information. The FAA, after considering the appeal, held that the information sought could not be provided u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that information sought should be provided free of cost and further, the public authority should be penalized as per the provisions of the RTI Act and he should be provided a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for harassment.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he wanted to know as to which authority could attest the documents, like the postmortem report, death intimation, death certificate, etc. He stated that in Mahasamund, the LIC accepted the reports that were verified by the issuing authority and therefore, he wanted the copy of the order according to which only the issuing authority could attest the documents. He added that the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India says that self attested documents should be accepted and the LIC was not doing so. The respondents stated that they had no such instructions available with them that only the issuing authority can attest the documents. On the Commission's query, as to how the sections 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 were applicable in the matter, the respondents could not justify the application of these sections to the matter at hand.
4. The Commission observes that the CPIO and the FAA, both, have not applied their mind to the information sought and gave a non-speaking order as the FAA too has denied this information u/s 8(1)(d). The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide a clear response on whether any instructions with the direction that the issuing authority only should attest the documents, have been issued and in case such instructions have been issued, provide a copy of the same to the appellant, within three days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001186
RTI application : 06.01.2016
CPIO's reply : 08.02.2016
First appeal : 15.02.2016
FAA's order : 18.03.2016
Second appeal : 11.05.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Maniram Sahu, the appellant, sought information pertaining to the number of policy claims received by the respondent insurance company wherein, the policy-holder's current name and name as mentioned in the school records, differed, and the payment of the policy was stopped, while also seeking the details of such policy-holders including their names and complete addresses.
2. The CPIO intimated the appellant that information sought by him was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d), (e) (g) and (j) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that the desired information should be provided. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that information sought should be provided free of cost and further, the public authority should be penalized as per the provisions of the RTI Act and he should be compensated for mental harassment.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had been wrongly denied information sought regarding cases that were pending because of difference in names in the school certificate and in the government current record. Therefore, he wanted to know the number of such cases pending with the respondents. The respondents stated that they do not prepare any list of pending cases which mentions the reasons for pendency. The only segregation that is done is based on early claim and non-early claim. Therefore, the information sought by the information is not available and hence they are unable to provide.
4. While accepting the submissions of the respondent authority on non-availability of information with regard to claims pending because of difference in names, the Commission observes that the various sections of the RTI Act had been incorrectly applied in this case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 has observed as follows:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant....."
5. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001187
RTI application : 06.01.2016
CPIO's reply : 30.01.2016
First appeal : 15.02.2016
FAA's order : 18.03.2016
Second appeal : 11.05.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Maniram Sahu, the appellant, sought a verified copy of the order/direction issued by the competent authority in accordance of which the documents relating to policy claim payments, as verified by the notary/gazetted officers, were not accepted.
2. The CPIO intimated the appellant that information sought by him was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d), (e), (g) and (j) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority FAA stating that the desired information should be provided. The FAA stated that the information sought could not be provided u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that information sought should be provided free of cost and further, the public authority should be penalized as per the provisions of the RTI Act and he should be compensated for mental harassment.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had not been provided clear response on his RTI application. The FAA had denied him information u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The respondents stated that the information sought in this particular application is similar to the one sought in case no. CIC/MP/A/2016/001985. On the Commission's query as to how were the sections under which the information had been denied to the appellant, were applicable to the information sought, the respondents were unable to justify the same.
4. On hearing both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a clear response to the RTI application within three days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001188
RTI application : 06.01.2016
CPIO's reply : 30.01.2016
First appeal : 15.02.2016
FAA's order : 18.03.2016
Second appeal : 11.05. 2016
ORDER
1. Shri Maniram Sahu, the appellant, sought information about the number of policy claims received by the respondent insurance company wherein the policy-holders had submitted applications with regard to the payment of claims, between the period 1.1.2015 and 31.12.2015, while also seeking verified copies of the first page of the aforementioned applications.
2. The CPIO intimated the appellant that information sought by him was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d), (e), (g) and (j) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that the desired information should be provided. The FAA upheld the CPIO's decision. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that information sought should be provided free of cost and further, the public authority should be penalized as per the provisions of the RTI Act and he should be compensated for harassment.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that in this case also, the CPIO and the FAA, both had disappointed him by denying him information while quoting sections 8(1)(d), (e), (g) and (j) of the RTI Act. The respondents stated that in this case, the appellant had sought the number of deceased claim cases for the calendar year whereas they maintain information financial year wise, therefore, the information sought could not provided to the appellant. Moreover, the first page of the claim applications contains personal information of the third party which was held by them in fiduciary capacity.
4. The Commission observes that the respondent authority had not taken the above stand with regard to this RTI application earlier at any stage. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide the number of deceased claim cases pending during the financial year 2015-16 within three days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. As regards the question of providing first page of claim applications is concerned, which had been demanded by the appellant, the Commission accepts the submissions made during the hearing that the information sought contained third party information and is held by them in fiduciary capacity.
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001189
RTI application : 06.01.2016
CPIO's reply : 30.01.2016
First appeal : 15.02.2016
FAA's order : 18.03.2016
Second appeal : 11.05.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Maniram Sahu, the appellant, sought information regarding the death claim cases relating to accident deaths where driving licence, police report and external evidence was available along with the number of claim cases pending along with the names of insured and their addresses.
2. The CPIO denied information u/s 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 Dissatisfied, the appellant made an appeal to the first appellate authority stating that he had been denied information u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and that he should be provided the information sought. The FAA upheld the CPIO's decision. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that information sought should be provided free of cost and further, the public authority should be penalized as per the provisions of the RTI Act and he should be compensation for the mental harassment.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant reiterated his position that denial of information u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) was not appropriate and he should be given the information as sought by him in his RTI application. the respondents stated that the appellant had sought information for a period beginning 1.1.2015 to 31.12.2015, i.e. according to the calendar year and the LIC does not maintain information as per calendar year but they maintain it as per the financial year. Moreover, they do not maintain details of claim cases due to "death in accident" separately. Therefore, they had not been able to provide the information sought by the appellant
4. The Commission observes that neither the CPIO nor the FAA had mentioned the above position in their responses. They had applied various sections of the RTI Act indiscriminately while they could have easily informed this position to the appellant. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide the number of pending claim case during the financial year 2015-16 as available. As far as the addresses of insured persons are concerned, this happens to be third party information, therefore, cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide the above information within three days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
5. As is apparent from the handling of the above five RTI applications, the CPIO and the FAA both have obviously not applied their mind to the information sought but denied all the information quoting various sections of the RTI Act without justifying as to how these sections were applicable to the information sought. The orders issued in all the cases were non-speaking orders. The CPIO and the FAA, both, have displayed an ignorance of the provisions of the RTI Act and negligent handling of the RTI applications. The Commission warns both the authorities to respond to the RTI applications properly and issue speaking orders in all cases in future. The Commission also observes that the appellant has made 5 RTI applications out which some have very minor difference in the information sought and all contain one point each on the same subject, i.e. claim settlement. The appellant could have made one RTI application covering the five points relating to claim settlement which would have helped in avoiding unnecessary work and diversion of resources for both the appellant and the respondent authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay has observed as follows:-
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Sd/-
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Life Insurance Corporation of India Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office, Pandri Divisional Office, Pandri Raipur-492004 (CG) Raipur-492004 (CG) Shri Mani Ram Sahu, Advocate District & Session Court District Mahasamund (CG) Copy also to the Sr Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Pandri, Raipur-492004 for taking action as deemed fit for laxity shown by the CPIO and the FAA.
Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar