Central Information Commission
Deepanshu Tomar vs National Insurance Company Limited on 18 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NINCL/A/2024/608076
Deepanshu Tomar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Insurance Company
Ltd., D.O. 5, 7th floor, Hemkunt
Tower, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi - 110008 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.07.2025
Date of Decision : 17.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.09.2023
CPIO replied on : 27.09.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.11.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"For faster retrieval of information, this RTI application pertains to Delhi Regional Office II Page 1 of 6
1. Furnish Particulars of Regional Agency Coordinator along with Contact Details at Delhi Regional Office II
2. Current status of my agency vide license no.410/20025034
3. Kindly refer to the supporting Document (emails of agency license renewal application sent to Division No.5 for Renewal of Agency License No.410/20025034) and furnish the following information:
a. Furnish Daily progress made on my application. b. Furnish the names and designations of the officials with whom my application was lying during this period. Please intimate the periods when it was lying with which officer and what action was taken by that official during that period What action would be taken against these officials.
c. According to your rules or citizen charter or any other order in how many days should such a matter be dealt with and resolved. Please provide a certified copy of these rules.
d. If the above officials have not adhered to the time limit mentioned in these rules. Are these officials guilty of violating these rules and hence guilty of misconduct under their conduct rules. Please give a certified copy of their conduct rule, which they have violated by violating the above-mentioned Rule.
e. Furnish certified Copy of complete file of my Agency record (along with all file notings) f. Furnish certified copy of the latest Appointment Letter issued by NICL.
4. As per National Insurance company limited (Appointment of Insurance Agents) Policy, 2022- my agency is eligible for Renewal, but still my License is not renewed by your esteemed office. Kindly Furnish Reasons on what basis my agency license is not renewed till date.
5. Kindly Furnish Contact details of Appellate Officer as per Section 2(4) and Designation Official as per Section 2(10) of National Insurance company limited (Appointment of Insurance Agents) Policy, 2022.
6. Furnish certified copy all Circular/Order/Office memorandum Regarding Renewal of Agency License.Page 2 of 6
7. Kindly furnish order/circular/ Notice regarding Non-renewal of agency license of agents on the basis of not attending monthly agents meeting held at mapped offices of the company.
8. Furnish the latest list of all employees of Division Office-5, New Delhi- 110008 along with their job status(permanent/contractual) and designation.
9. Furnish Particulars of the officials who deals application of change of Agent mapped office (with official email ID, Office Address).
10. Furnish List of all the Reimbursement Schemes available for the Agents.
11. Furnish List of all agents of office Division No.5, New Delhi-110008."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 27.09.2023 stating as under:
"1. Reply: Dr Ajay Singh (mail id - [email protected]. Address - National Insurance Company Ltd, DRO 2, 2nd Floor, Core - III, Scope Minar, New Delhi - 110092)
2. Reply: Renewed as on 17/07/2023
3. a. Reply: No such record available. b. Reply: License renewed timely. c. Reply: Kindly refer to Citizen Charter as available on company site:
www.nationalinsurance.co.in d. Reply: Information denied as falls under Sec-8 (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. e. Reply: No such record available.
f. Reply: Kindly contact your DAC/RAC
4. Reply: The license has been renewed as on 17/07/2023
5. Reply: FAA: Mr. Anil Kumar Bareja, RM, [email protected], ********605.
6. Reply: Kindly refer IRDAI (Appointment of Insurance Agents) Regulations, 2016.
7. Reply: Information falls under Sec-8 (1) d of RTI Act 2005.Page 3 of 6
8. Reply: Information sought falls under Sec-8 (1) j of RTI Act. 2005
9. Reply: Refer to point number 1.
10. Reply: Information sought falls under Sec-8 of RTI Act. 2005
11. Reply: The sought information is denied as per section 8(1) j of RTI Act, 2005 as it pertains to third party information."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 23.11.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Mrs. Sneha Sawant, Chief Business Manager/PIO, appeared in person.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the Respondent was incomplete and evasive. He stated that complete and satisfactory information was not provided on point Nos. 3, 7, 8 and 10 of the RTI application. He pleaded that even general information sought was denied arbitrarily by the Respondent. It was also stated that on point No. 2, his licence was renewed on 17.07.2023 whereas in response to his email, Ms. Madhu Sharma, Sr. Divisional Manager, Rajendra Place, New Delhi replied through email dated 20.07.2023 that "We will not be recommending your renewal of license till you commit the amount of business you will be placing with us, in future. Secondly, we have observed that you have not worked with us for the past years in improving your premium portfolio, as expected from you, nor have you been attending any of our monthly meetings for the past two years."
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply to the Appellant as per the records available with them and permissible under RTI Act vide letter dated 27.09.2023.
Page 4 of 67. The Commission noted that proof of having served a copy of his Second Appeals on the Respondent have not been uploaded by the Appellant while filing the same before the Commission. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.
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 the Appellant sought information on several points related to agency license renewal and policies/procedures of the Respondent office. The Respondent has provided point-wise reply as per their record vide letter dated 27.09.2023. The Appellant pointed out discrepancies between the official communication received from the CPIO and email correspondence with the Divisional Manager regarding his agency license status. It appears that Ms. Madhu Sharma, Sr. Divisional Manager, Rajendra Place, New Delhi has given misleading reply through email and hence, she is cautioned to be careful in future.
9. On Point No. 7 of the RTI application, the Appellant sought a copy of order/circular/notice regarding non-renewal of agency licenses due to non- attendance in monthly meetings. The CPIO has invoked Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. However, such policy-related information, if any, is not in the nature of commercial confidence or trade secret and should be disclosed unless it contains sensitive details, which is not evident here. Therefore, denial under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is unjustified.
10. As regards point No. 8 of the RTI application, the Appellant requested a list of employees and their designation along with their status (permanent/contractual) at Division Office-5. The CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the names, designations, and status (permanent/contractual) of public servants in their official capacity are not protected under personal information clause, as such data is expected to be available in the public domain in compliance of section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act. Hence, denial under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not sustainable.
11. Against point No. 10 of the RTI application, the Appellant asked for a list of reimbursement schemes available to agents. The CPIO vaguely denied the Page 5 of 6 information invoking Section 8, without citing a specific sub-clause or justifying exemption. During the hearing, the Respondent assured to provide this information. Since this pertains to welfare schemes applicable to agents, there is no apparent ground for exemption under the RTI Act. The reply given by the Respondent on all the remaining points are appropriate and further intervention of the Commission is not warranted on those points.
12. In view of the above, the Commission directs the Respondent CPIO to revisit the RTI application and provide revised and complete information on point Nos. 7, 8, and 10 of the RTI application to the Appellant free of cost within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO will also ensure that the information on point No. 8, which should be available in public domain in compliance of Section 4 (b) of the RTI Act. The Commission also cautions the CPIO to ensure proper application of exemption clauses in future and avoid blanket denials without sufficient justification.
13. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of 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, National Insurance Company Ltd., D.O. 5, 7th floor, Hemkunt Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)