Central Information Commission
Saeed Fatima vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 7 February, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos : CIC/LICOI/A/2023/669885
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/101941
1. Saeed Fatima
2. Jagjit Kaur Anand .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellants
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
LIC, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
AYODHYA ROAD, BENI GANJ
FAIZABAD - 224001
2. CPIO,
LIC Of India, Satara
Divisional Office, Jeevan
Tara, 513, Sadar Bazar,
Ganpatdas Devi Path, Satara- 415001. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 31-01-2024
Date of Decision : 07-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The abovementioned Appeals of the Appellants are clubbed together for
disposal as these are based on identical issues.
1
Relevant facts emerging from appeals:
RTI applications filed on : 27-10-2022 & 12-09-2022
CPIO replied on : 10-11-2022 & 24-11-2022
First appeals filed on : 17-11-2022 & 10-12-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 12-12-2022 & 23-12-2022
2nd Appeals/Complaint dated : 28-12-2022 & 05-01-2023
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/669885
Information sought:
Appellant No. 1 filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2022 with Respondent No. 1 seeking the following information:
"1. All Policy details viz. Policy Number, Name of policy, Sum Assured, Maturity Value, Maturity Period, Present Status of Policy etc. in the name of my deceased husband Late Insaf Hussain Abbasi resident of Village Garhi, Post: Lakhaura, Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki.
2. Nominee details of the policy holder of my deceased husband Late Insaf Hussain Abbasi.
3. Details of Matured policy/Claims after 09.10.2016 (Date of Death of my deceased husband Late Insaf Hussain Abbasi).
4. Details of Policies whom my deceased husband Late Insaf Hussain Abbasi was Nominee.
5. Procedure of transferring the claim amount of deceased to any Nominee (Trustee) when widow and daughter is alive."
The CPIO/ Respondent No. 1 furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant No. 1 on 10.11.2022 stating as under:
"बिन्दु 1 से 4: भारतीय जीवन िीमा बनगम में पॉबिसी सम्बन्धित सभी बववरण एवं सूचनाऐं पॉबिसी संख्या के आधार पर ही संबचत की जाती है । बिना पॉबिसी संख्या के मां गी गयी सूचना की पुबि सम्भव नहीं है ।2
बिन्दु 5 : पॉबिसीधारक द्वारा नाबमत बकये गये नाबमनी द्वारा मृत्युदावा प्रस्तुत बकये जाने पर यबद दावा उबचत पाया जाता है तो दावा राबि नाबमनी को भुगतान की जाती है।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 12.12.2022, held as under:-
"उपरोक्त अबधबनयम के अर्न्तगत आपके ऑनिाइन प्रथम अपीिीय पत्र बदनां क 17.11.2022 जोबक प्रथम अपीिीय प्राबधकारी को प्रत्यक्ष रूप से बदनां क 17.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ। यह प्रथम अपीि आपके मूि आरटीआई आवेदन पत्र आवेदन पत्र बदनां क 27.10.2022 जोबक हमें प्रत्यक्ष रूप से बदनां क 28.10.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था के अनुगत केन्द्रीय िोक सूचना अबधकारी के प्रत्युत्तर पत्र बदनां क 10.11.2022 के द्वारा सूचना से सर्न्ुि न होने पर की गयी है , आपके मूि आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपीिीय पत्र का सम्यक अध्ययन करने के उपरार्न् मेरे द्वारा प्रथम अपीिीय बनणतय बनम्नवत् पाररत बकया जाता है -
बिन्दु 1 से 3:आपके द्वारा बदये गये बववरण अबभकतात श्री गणेि प्रसाद यादव अबभकरण कोड 06690-228 के अर्न्गतत स्व० इं साफ हुसैन के जीवन पर जारी पॉबिसी के बववरण बनम्नानुसार है -
अ) पॉबिसी संख्या 214268059 जोबक स्व0 इं साफ हुसैन के जीवन पर जारी थी, के अर्न्गतत नामनी श्रीमती सईद फाबतमा है । उक्त पॉबिसी के अर्न्गतत मृत्यु भुगतान रू0 78800/- बदनां क 26.10.2016 को पॉबिसी में नाबमत श्रीमती सईद फाबतमा के पॉबिसी में अंबकत खाते में कर बदया गया है। ि) पॉबिसी संख्या 212187966 जोबक स्व0 इं साफ हुसैन के जीवन पर जारी थी, उक्त पॉबिसी के अर्न्गतत पूणात वबध भुगतान रू0 17300/- बदनां क 28.03.2014 को पॉबिसी में अंबकत खाते में कर बदया गया है ।
स) पॉबिसी संख्या 218719046 जोबक स्व0 इं साफ हुसैन के जीवन पर जारी थी, उक्त पॉबिसी के अर्न्गतत मृत्युदावा भुगतान रू0 65700/- बदनां क 07.11.2016 को पॉबिसी में अंबकत नाबमनी के खाते में कर बदया गया है। उक्त पॉबिसी में आप नाबमनी नहीं है ।3
बिन्दु 4 :भारतीय जीवन िीमा बनगम में पॉबिसी सम्बन्धित सभी बववरण एवं सूचनाएँ पॉबिसी संख्या के आधार पर ही संबचत की जाती है । बिना पॉबिसी संख्या के मां गी गयी सूचना की पुबि सम्भव नहीं है ।
बिन्दु 5 :पॉबिसीधारक द्वारा नाबमत बकये गये नाबमनी द्वारा मृत्युदावा प्रस्तुत बकये जाने पर यबद दावा उबचत पाया जाता है तो दावा राबि नाबमनी को भुगतान की जाती है।"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/101941 Information sought:
Appellant No. 2 filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2022 with Respondent No.
2 seeking the following information:
"Information with respect to Unclaimed Life Insurance Policy in the name of my Father Gurbax (Gurubaksh) Singh Chadha in the year of 1950- 1965."
The CPIO/ Respondent No. 2 furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant No. 2 on 24.11.2022 stating as under:
"1) Policy record is maintained in policy number-wise serially and not on the name-wise. With reference to our letter dated 19/10/2022, we have requested you to provide the policy number on the life of Gurbax (Gurubaksh) Singh Chadha. In the absence of the policy number and being huge data of policy numbers, the required information is not available. As per the definition of the 'information' the information sought is not available under Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005, we are unable to provide the same under RTI Act 2005.4
2) On the website of LIC of India, www.licindia.in, link for 'unclaimed amounts of policy holders' is provided which also require the policy number."
Being dissatisfied, appellant No. 2 filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 23.12.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellants: Not Present.
Respondent No. 1: Ms. Preeti Saxena, Manager (CRM)/PS & PIO and Shri Ajay Prakash Yadav, AO present through Video-Conference. Respondent No. 2: Ms. M. P. Anitha, Manager (CRM) & CPIO present through Video-Conference.
In case File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/669885 -
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that ab-initio the information sought by the Appellant was not provided to her as she has not mentioned the 'policy number' in her RTI application in order to trace the information. However, at the stage of first appeal, the Appellant has furnished certain details from which they have traced the information and vide their letter dated 12.12.2022, complete information as per the documents available on record was provided to the Appellant.
Upon being queried from the Commission about the methods being adopted by the Public Authority in searching for the details of policy holder. The Respondent stated that they can trace the details of any policy/policy holder/nominee through "Policy number" only and no other parameter. From no other method the Public Authority can trace the details of the policy holder.5
In case File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/101941 -
Written submissions filed by the Appellant and the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent while defending her case invited attention of the Commission towards her written submission dated 24.01.2024, wherein she inter alia stated as under -
"...Ms. Jagjit Kaur Anand had preferred RTI Application and Appeal seeking information of any Unclaimed Policy, if any, in the name of Gurbax (Gurbaksh) Singh Chadha, her father during the period from year 1950- 1965. From above, it is clear that the policy number of Gurbax (Gurbaksh) Singh Chadha was neither provided at the RTI Application First Appeal Stage.
It is re-iterated that the premise of the data / and of records of the policies issued by the respondent policy number specific. This means any information of records of documents of a policy whether available ascertained only on feeding/providing the particular policy number in the system of the respondent or absence of policy number, no information can be provided. The policy numbers cannot be traced/as basis of fields like Name or any other details/criteria. Further, identification of policies/policyholders policy numbers is not feasible as the probability of mismatch in spelling of name / Date of Birth policyholder or any other criteria cannot be ruled out.
Further, the details of any Unclaimed Amount of a policy is available in Public Domain and can be c Website of LIC of India i.e. www.licindia.in > Unclaimed amounts of Policyholders > where in the Date of Birth are Mandatory fields to be keyed in.
AIso, the data of policies issued by the respondent organization is not maintained manually in Register/s and as such the request of the Appellant to hand over the copy of the register of the said year 1950-65 either/or allow member, Nehadeep Kaur Anand, to peruse the said Register for and on her behalf, at Appeal stage not only expands the scope 6 of RTI application but is also not feasible as no such year-wise physical record issued by the respondent organization, exists as it is not maintained manually, in the first place. Also, the respondent organization commenced its business operations from 1956 onwards.
Further, the current Senior Branch-in-charge, BO 942, Sangli, visited the Chadha Cycle store on 17.01.2024 to help/guide the family members of Shri Gurbax (Gurbaksh) Singh Chadha to locate any premium receipt/bank statement/correspondence received from the respondent organization which may indicate policy number. However, the Senior BM was informed that the family of Shri Gurbax (Gurbaksh) Singh Chadha has shifted to Pune. The letter received from the Senior BM, BO 942, Sangli is enclosed herewith....' Decision:
In case File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/101941 -
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as it was found to be as per the provisions of RTI Act.
In case File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/669885 -
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent ab-initio had denied disclosure of information merely on the ground that "no policy number is mentioned in the RTI application".
In case File Nos. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/101941 and CIC/LICOI/A/2023/669885 -
The Commission is of the considered opinion that any applicant has a Right to Information related to the details of her own policy or of the policies in which she/he is a "nominee" and the same cannot be denied on a technical ground of absence of policy number. The Respondent's assertion that "the base of LIC is policy number" is insufficient grounds to withhold details of a LIC policy.7
Moreover, in Madhao Laxman Kapil v. LIC of India, passed by M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 09.05.2014 wherein it was made clear that, even when all relevant details of the LIC policy was provided, there was an outright dismissal of the request for information stating that such policy does not exist and LIC made various false assertions to not disclose the information and the Appellant was not provided requested information for a period of 18 years, despite the fact that the Appellant has shared multiple documents relating to the policy to verify his claim during this time period.
The Commission is of the view that the Respondent, at the initial stage of giving reply to the RTI application of the Appellant, could have asked her about further details of the policy but the CPIO denied disclosure of information on technical grounds. It is only at the stage of first appeal, the FAA had provided information to the Appellant. Getting simple information or guidance, at the stage of first appeal, in which the Appellant is herself a nominee, is in itself a pain and harassment at the hands of the Public Authority.
The Commission further observes that the Respondent Public Authority is a Public Sector Life Insurance Company and India's largest insurance company. The general public entrusted their money to the Public Authority with the faith that all their details and money are maintained in a manner that the policy- holder/nominee can get the same at the appropriate time from Public Authority particularly at premature demise of Policy Holder. But when the applicants get the response under the RTI Act that without policy number no details can be traced out, the whole purpose of the RTI Act would be defeated. Further, the entrustment maintained by the general public on the Public Authority becomes weakened.
The Commission feels that in the event of a natural calamity or Act of God, vital information pertaining to a LIC policy, such as the policy number, date of policy, nominee, etc., may be lost and in such instances, individuals may solely depend on public authority i.e. LIC to retrieve this information. However, in many cases, Policy Holder are either illiterate or for other reasons do not give information/details to the nominees.8
Therefore, it is imperative for LIC to establish a system that facilitates the retrieval of policy and all data of policyholders, particularly when policy number is not available, even if by asking the applicant to visit there with relevant documents.
Presently the website of LIC under the link as provided in the response i.e. www.licindia.in>customer services>unclaimed amounts of policy holder's> name of policy holder + date of birth shows unclaimed amount. However, it does not depict in an easy form the method for filing claim when policy number is not known by either the nominee or the policy holder. In many cases legal heir may not be a nominee or vice versa.
However, in several cases policy holders do not disclose to nominee that he/she has been made a nominee by the policy holder and on demise of policy holder, the legal heir/nominee has no means to know whether the deceased has a policy and/or whether anyone was made a nominee. Under such circumstances, the amount of policy will become "unclaimed" only after entering the fact of demise of the policy holder. Amount may become "unclaimed" for several other reasons too.
Further, the website of LIC does not have a facility for nominee/legal heir to firstly inform the LIC about the demise of policy holder and secondly to stake a claim. At least guidelines for filing claim needs to be provided including also when policy number is not known.
The long winding and labyrinthine procedure cause delays and frustration to the nominee/legal heir, more so for young dependants pursuing education.
On query from the Commission during the hearing, the Respondent has expressed apprehension that if such a search is opened to general public, fraudulent claims may be filed by persons other than genuine nominees or legal heirs. On the other hand, nominee/legal heir suffer delays which may defeat the purpose of receiving immediate benefits. A balance has to be stuck between these two contrasting sides.
Upon being further queried from the Commission, the Respondent submitted that for early claim disposal, they keep the unclaimed amount for 10 years in an 9 account bearing simple rate of interest and then such amount is transferred to Senior Citizen's Fund, which is administered by government.
Section 4(1)(a) of RTI Act makes it imperative for Public Authority to maintain data in an easily accessible form.
"Section 4 of the RTI Act reads as under:-
4(1) Obligations of public authorities: - (1) Every public authority shall-
(a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated."
In this regard, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sayyed Education Society v. State of Maharashtra, WP 1305/2011 dated 12.02.2014 had held that Public Authorities are under a statutory obligation to maintain records and disseminate as per the provisions of the Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court in this respect, held as under:
"Needless to state that as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 14 in the case of CBSE and Another (supra), Public Authorities are under an obligation to maintain records and disseminate the information in the manner provided under Section 4 of the RTI act. The submission of the petitioner that it is an onerous task to supply documents, therefore is required to be rejected. The Law mandates preserving of documents, supplying copies thereof to the applicant, in our view, cannot be said to be an onerous task."
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
10"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh ([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Public Authority may not give open access to general public to prevent frauds but its officers of sufficient seniority in hierarchy at Division level or so should have access to search the data by other paraments like Policy Holder's name his/her father/spouse name, date of birth, nominee name, etc. To facilitate filing claims when nominee or legal heir first approaches the LIC, its officer should seek requisite details from them and inform them of the outcome. If they are entitled, then facilitate filing and processing of the claims. The website of LIC does not seem to provide guidance to such persons.
It is discouraging enough for any nominee to be told by LIC that without policy number they cannot help. Only those who persevere, are able to elicit a proper response. Questions under RTI such as in the instant case reproduced below should be answered once a claimant approaches the Public Authority:
"4. Details of Policies whom my deceased husband Late Insaf Hussain Abbasi was Nominee.
5. Procedure of transferring the claim amount of deceased to any Nominee (Trustee) when widow and daughter is alive"
Although, after going through the weblink of the LIC regarding the search of details regarding unclaimed amount where details of Policy Number is optional which shows that Data Base Management System of this Public Authority is creating linkage. Yet, the fact remains that there is no complete compliance with 11 Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act which is evident from the fact that in the absence of access to Policy Number and copy of said agreement/Policy, the claimant would be deprived to know the broad features and benefits which he/ she may be entitled to know. Therefore, considering the gravity of issue flagged in the instant matters, the Commission finds it appropriate to intervene that there should be guidelines and/or Standard Operating Procedure should be developed by the Respondent Public Authority in the matter that it becomes easier/operational for nominee/claimant/beneficiaries to get the details of Insurance Policy details through Nominee name- wise and their KYC to enable him to file their genuine claims.
Considering a careful examination of the facts, the Commission hereby directs the Head of the Public Authority to promptly take necessary measures to ensure the disclosure of information concerning LIC policies, even in instances where the policy number is not provided through a pre-disclosed SoP. This directive is issued in the best interest of the general public, as it is crucial to safeguard individuals' rights and well-being, uphold transparency, and mitigate potential legal liabilities.
Additionally, LIC is strongly advised to develop a robust system that enables the identification of policies without policy numbers, specifically designed to address unforeseen circumstances effectively so as to achieve full compliance with Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Further, in the best interest of general public and for ease of business, the Public Authority should provide a 'tab' depicting clearly "Filing Claim when policy number is not known". Further, there should be a search option for an officer of LIC at sufficiently senior level where he/she can trace the details by nominee name and date of birth, etc. For this purpose, it is highly advisable to do 'KYC' for nominees also at the time of issuing a policy.
Further, in Group Insurance Schemes, the Public Authority is advised that beneficiaries be informed directly by LIC, who in turn should be advised to inform their nominees/legal heir.
In light of the above observations, a copy of this order should be forwarded to the Chairperson, LIC for his information and necessary action.
12The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date:- 07-02-2024 13