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 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mrb C Lohni vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 30 June, 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/2015/002326

Appellant                       : Shri B C Lohani, Lucknow
Public Authority                : Life Insurance Corporation           of   India,
                                  Lucknow

Date of Hearing                 : 2nd June, 2016
Date of Decision                : 30th June, 2016

Present
Appellant                       : Present.
Respondents                     : Shri Madan Chandra Joshi, Manager
                                  (CRM)- through VC

RTI application                 :   17.04.2015
CPIO's reply                    :   09.05.2015
First appeal                    :   18.05.2015
FAA's order                     :   10.06.2015
Second appeal                   :   24.11.2015

Information Commissioner        : Smt. Manjula Prasher

                                     ORDER

1. The appellant, Shri B C Lohani, vide his RTI application dated 17.04.2015 sought following information: 1) list of retired employees of Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture, Rehmankheda, Lucknow who had been paid the amount of group insurance policy under master policy no. 52434 during the period 31.01.2014 to 31.12.2014; 2) copy of intimation sent to the institute regarding the said payment; and 3) copies of documents showing the monthly premium deposited by and paid to said retired employees.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 09.05.2015 declined the disclosure of information sought in point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application under section 8(1)

(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and with regard to point no. 3 advised the appellant to approach the master policy holder (employer), while mentioning that the 1 details of the payment could not be provided without their consent. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal dated 18.05.2015 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) which the FAA disposed of vide order dated 10.06.2015 holding that information sought by the appellant could not be provided to him in view of sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

3. The appellant then filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 24.11.2015 challenging the decision of the FAA.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he was one of the members of the group insurance policy mentioned in the RTI application and had been paid lesser amount in comparison to the other similarly placed members of the said policy, while the amount of monthly premium deducted from his salary was higher than that of other members. Therefore, he wanted to know the reason for difference between the payment made to him and to the other similarly placed employees in respect of said group insurance policy. The respondents stated that they had scrutinized the appellant's case and found that the amount of policy paid to him was less because of certain differences in details (of comprehensive amount-category wise) sent by the employer and that thereafter they had made the payment of difference amount (Rs. 2, 132/-) to the appellant on 01.06.2016. As regards other employees, the respondents mentioned that they had started recalculation of the payment made to them and would take appropriate action as per the rule after completion of recalculation. They maintained that the information sought by the appellant pertained to third party and was thus exempt under section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

5. The Commission observes that the information sought by the appellant pertains to the policy details of third parties (other employees) which constitutes 'personal information' of said third parties, disclosure of which is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission concurs with the respondents' decision that the information sought by the appellant attracts exemption under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as the same is kept by them in fiduciary 2 relationship vis-à-vis the members of policy/policy holder. In view of this, the present appeal cannot be allowed. The Commission however recommends that the aforementioned exercise of recalculation of payment made to other employees is completed expeditiously and appropriate action is taken according to the rules. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri B C Lohani 193 K, Shakti Nagar PO- Indira Nagar Lucknow The Central Public Information Officer Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash 30, Hazratganj Lucknow 226 001 The First Appellate Authority Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash 30, Hazratganj Lucknow 226 001 3