Central Information Commission
Vinay Bhai Navnitlal Gandhi vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 20 February, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/LICOI/A/2023/144392
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/144393
Vinay Bhai Navnitlal Gandhi .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
LIC of India,
Customer Relations Management Department,
Ahmedabad Divisional Office, Jeevan
Prakash, Tilak Road, Ahmedabad - 380001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2025
Date of Decision : 19.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above- mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decisions
through common order as these are based on similar RTI applications of the
same Appellant.
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/144392
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.12.2022
CPIO replied on : 23.12.2022
First appeal filed on : 31.12.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.02.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Page 1 of 15
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 07.12.2022 seeking the following information:
"My policy no. 838210587 matured on 28/11/2022. I have submitted the discharge form but i am very much angry due to cheating done by LIC. The Discharge form submitted by me may be treated under protest.
I have paid RS.55,81,320/= as premium but the maturity is RS. 51,48,340/= as against SA of 1,00,00,000/-
I would therefore like to know:
1. How many Jeevan Saral Legal suits are pending at LIC offices in various courts across the country?
2. How many Jeevan Saral Legal suits have been lost across the country? Kindly provide me the details all the cases lost by LIC under Jeevan Saral plan in the following format.
A. Case no. / year B. Name of court & cases C. Action taken by LIC.
3. Under the policy no. 838210587 Sum assured is 1,00,00,000/= I have paid premium of 55,81,320/= and received Rs. 51,48,340/= as maturity against S.A of Rs. 1, 00, 00,000/=. Please let me know the reasons?
4. Please let me know in case LIC VS DEEPAK R. KOTHARI, LIC paid Rs.26, 67,000/= against premium of Rs. 13, 65,000/= paid by customer.
In similar fashion i have paid premium of Rs. 55,81,320/= and received 51,48,340/- for SA of Rs.1, 00, 00,000/=. Almost half the premium similar to the above case.
Your reply must reach me at the earliest as per the rules of RTI act.
Please let me know the amount to be paid for providing me photo copies of the papers required by me."Page 2 of 15
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 23.12.2022 stating as under:
"Reply to queries no 1,2 and 4: Queries no 1,2 and 4 are of Legal matters the reply will be given by our Legal Department, Central Office, Mumbai.
Reply no.3: The plan purchased by you is Jeevan Saral, 165-10, which contains two types of Sum Assured, one is Death S.A. and other is Maturity S.A. Under your policy Death S.A. is 1,00,00,000/- and Maturity S.A. is Rs.34,90,400/- which is printed on policy document. Maturity payment details are as under:
Maturity Sum Assured:
Rs. 34,90,400/- (Which is already mentioned on Original Policy Bond) Loyalty Addition:
Rs. 16,57,940/- (As mentioned in plan condition) Total:
Rs. 51,48,340/-
We are having a variety of Plans and every Plan has its own special features, this Plan i.e. Jeevan Saral is having significantly More Death benefits compare to Maturity. More over under this plan premium is same for all age groups, however Maturity amount differs with age, higher the age lesser the Maturity amount."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 02.02.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 06.02.2025 has been filed by Shri B C Janani, Manager (CRM)/CPIO is taken on record. Relevant extracts of the same are reproduced below:
"...The Appellant in his second Appeal has raised new points under Query no. 3 and 4 of the original RTI Application, thus expanding the scope of RTI Application at Second Appeal stage. The Appellant has contended that because he had purchased the Jeevan Saral policy which is an endowment plan with profit, it implies that at the time of maturity, his total premium paid shall be returned with profit over and above his premium as paid under all endowment plans.Page 3 of 15
The Appellant in his second appeal has re-iterated that he has paid total premium of Rs. 55,81,320/- and received only Rs. 51,48,340/- as maturity value along with loyalty addition, thus resulting in loss of Rs. 4,32,980/- under his Jeevan Saral policy no. 838210587. The Appellant has raised new points seeking information in detail about the plan no. 165, Jeevan Saral such as design of the policy plan finalized and approved by the Actuary of LIC of India, Management of the fund accumulated by LIC of India under this plan ie Commission, Mortality charges, Administration expense, Investment of the fund of this plan, profit realized from the Investment of the fund of this plan and details of method under which loyalty addition is calculated for this plan.
On receipt of CIC Hearing Notice, the current CPIO referred the matter to the deemed PIOs, for re-visiting the matter and the deemed PIOs have provided information as under:
1. M/s. Dwarkesh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, the employer, had proposed insurance for Shri Vinay Bhai Navnitlal Gandhi, employee Director of the Company (the appellant), aged 49, under Employer-Employee scheme, on 28.09.2012 to take life insurance policy under plan no. 165 Jeevan Saral by submitting duly filled-in and signed proposal form alongwith all KYC, necessary documents and medical reports. The appellant had paid deposit against first premium on 28.11.2012 as a consideration and agreed to enter into a contract with LIC of India, on which basis, the City branch no. 3/838 had accepted the proposal with "Class III (three) Extra" by adjusting amount of premium at the final calculated yearly mode of premium of Rs. 558132/, completed and issued the policy no.
838210587, with Date of commencement as 26.11.2012, Plan no. 165 Jeevan Saral, Term 10 years, Yearly installment premium Rs. 558132/ for Maturity Sum Assured of Rs.3490400/- and Death benefit Sum Assured of Rs. 10000000/- clearly mentioned in the policy document. It is pertinent to mention here that the policy bond of policy no. 838210587 had Maturity Sum Assured printed as Rs. 3490400/- and Death Sum Assured printed as Rs. 10000000/- and appearing at appropriate place in the policy bond. The Maturity Benefit printed on the policy bond clearly mentions that "In the event of the Life assured surviving the date of Maturity, a sum equal to Maturity Sum assured in force after partial surrenders, if any, along with the corresponding loyalty addition, If any, shall be payable".
Further, even after receipt of the original policy bond, mentioning all the above details in terms and condition on the first page of the policy bond, the Appellant has never raised any query regarding the Maturity and Death benefits payable under the policy. The Appellant has paid premiums for full policy term of 10 years. Even after receipt of Maturity claim intimation under Page 4 of 15 the policy, where maturity amount payable was clearly mentioned, the Appellant had not raised any query before signing and submitting the required documents, on the basis of which, the maturity claim was processed and paid to the Appellant.
It is pertinent to mention here that the primary purpose of a Life Insurance is to provide financial protection to beneficiaries in the event of Life Assured's death. The returns under an Insurance policy are provided in addition to meeting his primary objective.
Jeevan Saral Plan was launched on 12th February 2004 post approved by IRDAI. It is a high risk plan where the sum assured payable on death is 250 times of monthly basic premium, In addition, the premiums paid excluding first year/extra/rider premium are also returned along with sum assured in case of death.
Usually, in a life insurance contract, premium is higher for higher ages. In Jeevan Saral plan, however, premium remains same irrespective of the age of the policyholder and the Maturity Sum Assured varies with age and policy term. Maturity Sum Assured is payable at the end of the policy term. Thus, Maturity Sum Assured is less for higher age of the policyholder due to higher mortality cost at such higher ages. In the instant case, the Appellant's age at the time of taking the Jeevan Saral policy was 49 years and policy term was 10 years. A major portion of the premium paid by the appellant was utilized for risk cover of high Death benefit Sum Assured of Rs. 1 Crore along with return of premium paid for all the years excluding first year premium and hence less sum assured was available for payment at the end of the policy term i.e. on maturity.
Jeevan Saral plan is a participating plan and eligible policyholders under this plan may get Loyalty Addition depending on experience of the Corporation. This amount is an add-on benefit payable to the eligible policyholder on exit as a result of death/maturity/surrender over and above the usual benefits applicable under the plan. Loyalty addition is declared each year based on actuarial investigation of the Corporation undertaken as per Section 26 of the LIC Act 1956 and applicable Rules and Regulations of IRDAI.
In the instant matter, the Appellant's Jeevan Saral policy no. 838210587 matured on 26.11.2022. The Discharge voucher for Maturity claim intimation received on 14.10.2022 from the Appellant in which following details was mentioned: Payments → Maturity Sum Assured: Rs. 3490400/- (as mentioned in Original Policy Bond) + Loyalty Addition: Rs. 16,57,940/- (475*3490400/- /1000) Total payable Rs. 51,48,340/-. The Appellant submitted duly signed Page 5 of 15 discharge voucher along with his bank details without any objections and payment of maturity claim was processed on 17.10.2022 and payment made on 26.11.2022.
From above, it is clarified that the Maturity Sum Assured paid to the Appellant under his Jeevan Saral policy is correct and as per Terms and condition of the plan. The contention of the Appellant that as the Jeevan Saral plan being an endowment plan with profit, his total premium pald should be returned with profit over and above his premium, as paid under all endowment plans, at the time of maturity is misplaced and incorrect.
Further, it is clarified that the respondent organisation does not maintain Plan- wise accounting of commission, mortality charges, administration expenses, fund accumulated and invested under a Plan, profit realized from invested fund under a plan, as sought by the Appellant at Second Appeal stage. The Management of the fund accumulated by the respondent organisation follows a life pattern as part of common pool and Invested according to regulations under Insurance Act, 1938 and the relevant provisions for the same are enclosed herewith (2 pages).
2. Further, in his second Appeal, the Appellant is seeking clarification under Query no. 4 of the RTI Application alleging that he has incurred financial loss and wants to know why the respondent organisation paid Rs. 26,67,000/- against premium of Rs. 13,65,000/-, while paying Maturity claim in case Shri Deepak R. Kothari, another Jeevan Saral policyholder.
It is clarified that in case of Shri Deepak R Kothari's Jeevan Saral policy, the Maturity Sum Assured was printed as Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rs.25 lakh) and the Death benefit Sum assured was printed as Rs. 3,94,900/- on the policy bond due to an inadvertent typo-error, wherein the amounts payable at Maturity and on Death got Interchanged. On the date of maturity, the policyholder lodged his claim for Maturity Sum Assured Rs. 25,00,000/- as printed on the policy bond. However, the respondent organisation informed the policy holder that only Rs. 3,94,000/- along with loyalty addition of Rs. 1,67,832/- is payable on Maturity and the amount printed on the policy bond against Maturity Sum Assured is a typo-error.
The policyholder went into litigation against the respondent organisation and the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 11.12.2018 upheld the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra which directed the respondent organisation to pay total Rs. 26,67,832 with interest from date of maturity till Page 6 of 15 actual payment as the respondent organisation had not informed the policyholder about the typo-error in amounts payable at Maturity and on Death, during the policy period.
The Appellant's contention that as per the above decision, he is entitled to receive Rs. 1,11,62,640/- le double the amount of premium paid (Rs. 55,81,320/-) by him, is baseless and devoid of any merit. The Appellant is informed that under his policy no. 838210587, there is no typo-error in the amounts printed on the policy bond. The Maturity amount paid as explained above is correct and as per the Terms and condition of the policy mentioned in the Schedule on the first page of the policy bond. The decision taken in Shri Deepak R Kothari's case is not applicable in the instant matter. The CPIO can only provide information as available with the Office of Public Authority and the Appellant has been provided appropriate information at all stages le RTI Application and Appeal stage. The domain of adjudication in the matter is out of purview of RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance if any as RTI forum is not a grievance redressal forum.
Also, the Appellant vide his another RTI Application Reg. No. LICWZ/R/P/24/00208 dated 09.05.2024 had sought for all the documents under his Jeevan Saral policy no. 838210587 from inception of the policy till maturity and the CPIO, Ahmedabad Division has provided the same on 20.05.2024. No further information remains to be provided in the matter. It is also pertinent to mention here that the combined decision dated 16.12.2024 of Hon'ble CIC in CIC case No: CIC/LICOI/A/2023/139138 and CIC/LICOI/A/2023/143877-Shri Kamlesh Bhai Navnitlal Gandhi (brother of the Appellant) Vs. CPIO/Ahmedabad, LIC of India, in exactly the same matter is reproduced as under:
"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records finds no infirmity in the replies furnished by the Respondent earlier and now vide written submission dated 04.12.2024, which is treated as revised and updated reply, as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matters."
In view of above clarifications provided to the queries of the RTI application and to the new points raised in second appeal, the Hon'ble CIC is requested that the second appeal filed by Shri Vinay Bhai Navnitial Gandhi, be dismissed summarily.
Page 7 of 15The hard copy of the submission is sent by registered post to the Appellant at his address mentioned in second. appeal-*************, Ahmedabad-380052 on 06.02.2025."
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/144393 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.11.2022 CPIO replied on : 23.12.2022 First appeal filed on : 31.12.2022 First Appellate Authority's order : 02.02.2022 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2022 (offline) seeking the following information:
"My policy no. 838632220 matured on 28/11/2022. I have submitted the discharge form but i am very much angry due to cheating done by LIC. The Discharge form submitted by me may be treated under protest.
I have paid RS.55,81,320/= as premium but the maturity is RS. 51,48,340/= as against SA of 1,00,00,000/-
I would therefore like to know:
1. How many Jeevan Saral Legal suits are pending at LIC offices in various courts across the country?
2. How many Jeevan Saral Legal suits have been lost across the country?
Kindly provide me the details all the cases lost by LIC under Jeevan Saral plan in the following format.
A. Case no. / year B. Name of court & cases C. Action taken by LIC.
3. Under the policy no. 838632220 Sum assured is 1,00,00,000/= I have paid premium of 55,81,320/= and received Rs. 51,48,340/= as maturity against S.A of Rs. 1, 00, 00,000/=. Please let me know the reasons?
Page 8 of 154. Please let me know in case LIC VS DEEPAK R. KOTHARI, LIC paid Rs.26, 67,000/= against premium of Rs. 13, 65,000/= paid by customer.
In similar fashion i have paid premium of Rs. 55,81,320/= and received 51,48,340/- for SA of Rs.1, 00, 00,000/=. Almost half the premium similar to the above case.
Your reply must reach me at the earliest as per the rules of RTI act.
Please let me know the amount to be paid for providing me photo copies of the papers required by me."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 23.12.2022 stating as under:
"Reply to queries no 1,2 and 4: Your queries no 1,2 and 4 are partially transferred to Other Public Authority i.e. LIC of India, Central Office, RTI Department, Mumbai. They will directly reply to you.
Reply no.3: The plan purchased by you is Jeevan Saral, 165-10, which contains two types of Sum Assured, one is Death S.A. and other is Maturity S.A. Under your policy Death S.A. is 1,00,00,000/- and Maturity S.A. is Rs.34,90,400/- which is printed on policy document. Maturity payment details are as under:
Maturity Sum Assured: Rs. 34,90,400/- (Which is already mentioned on Original Policy Bond) Loyalty Addition:
Rs. 16,57,940/- (As mentioned in plan condition) Total:
Rs. 51,48,340/-
We are having a variety of Plans and every Plan has its own special features, this Plan i.e. Jeevan Saral is having significantly More Death benefits compare to Maturity. Moreover under this plan premium is same for all age groups, however Maturity amount differs with age, higher the age lesser the Maturity amount."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 02.02.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 9 of 15A written submission dated 06.02.2025 has been filed by Shri B C Janani, Manager (CRM)/CPIO is taken on record. Relevant extracts of the same are reproduced below:
"...Our Submission -
The Appellant in his second Appeal has raised new points under Query no. 3 and 4 of the original RTI Application, thus expanding the scope of RTI Application at Second Appeal stage. The Appellant has contended that because he had purchased the Jeevan Saral policy which is an endowment plan with profit, it implies that at the time of maturity, his total premium paid shall be returned with profit over and above his premium as paid under all endowment plans.
The Appellant in his second appeal has re-iterated that he has paid total premium of Rs. 55,81,320/- and received only Rs. 51,48,340/- as maturity value along with loyalty addition, thus resulting in loss of Rs. 4,32,980/- under his Jeevan Saral policy no. 838632220. The Appellant has raised new points seeking Information in detail about the plan no. 165, Jeevan Saral such as design of the policy plan finalized and approved by the Actuary of LIC of India, Management of the fund accumulated by LIC of India under this plan ie Commission, Mortality charges, Administration expense, Investment of the fund of this plan, profit realized from the Investment of the fund of this plan and details of method under which loyalty addition is calculated for this plan.
On receipt of CIC Hearing Notice, the current CPIO referred the matter to the deemed PIOs, for re-visiting the matter and the deemed PIOs have provided information as under:
1. M/s. Dwarkesh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, the employer, had proposed insurance for Shri Vinay Bhai Navnitlal Gandhi, employee Director of the Company (the appellant), aged 49, under Employer-Employee scheme, on 09.08.2012 to take life insurance policy under plan no. 165 Jeevan Saral by submitting duly filled-
in and signed proposal form alongwith all KYC, necessary documents and medical reports. The appellant had paid deposit against first premium of Rs.50000/- on 08.08.2012 as a consideration and agreed to enter into a contract with LIC of India, on which basis, the City branch no. 8/850 had accepted the proposal "with Class III extra" by adjusting amount of premium at the final calculated yearly mode of premium of Rs. 558132/-, completed and issued the policy no. 838632220, with Date of commencement as 28.11.2012, Plan no. 165 Jeevan Saral, Term 10 years, Yearly installment premium Rs. 558132/ for Maturity Sum Assured of Rs.3490400/- and Death benefit Sum Assured of Rs. 10000000/- clearly mentioned in the policy document. It is pertinent to mention here that the policy bond of policy no. 838632220 had Maturity Sum Assured printed as Rs. 3490400/- and Death benefit Sum Assured printed as Rs. 10000000/- and appearing at appropriate place in the policy bond. The Maturity Benefit printed on the policy bond Page 10 of 15 clearly mentions that "In the event of the Life assured surviving the date of Maturity, a sum equal to Maturity Sum assured in force after partial surrenders, if any, along with the corresponding loyalty addition, if any, shall be payable".
Further, even after receipt of the original policy bond, mentioning all the above details in terms and condition on the first page of the policy bond, the Appellant has never raised any query regarding the Maturity and Death benefits payable under the policy. The Appellant has paid premiums for full policy term of 10 years. Even after receipt of Maturity claim intimation under the policy, where maturity amount payable was clearly mentioned, the Appellant had not raised any query before signing and submitting the required documents, on the basis of which, the maturity claim was processed and paid to the Appellant.
It is pertinent to mention here that the primary purpose of a Life Insurance is to provide financial protection to beneficiaries in the event of Life Assured's death. The returns under an Insurance policy are provided in addition to meeting his primary objective.
Jeevan Saral Plan was launched on 12th February 2004 post approved by IRDAI. It is a high risk plan where the sum assured payable on death is 250 times of monthly basic premium, in addition, the premiums paid excluding first year/extra/rider premium are also returned along with sum assured In case of death.
Usually, in a life insurance contract, premium is higher for higher ages. In Jeevan Saral plan, however, premium remains same irrespective of the age of the policyholder and the Maturity Sum Assured varies with age and policy term. Maturity Sum Assured is payable at the end of the policy term. Thus, Maturity Sum Assured is less for higher age of the policyholder due to higher mortality cost at such higher ages. In the instant case, the Appellant's age at the time of taking the Jeevan Saral policy was 49 years and policy term was 10 years. A major portion of the premium paid by the appellant was utilized for risk cover of high Death benefit Sum Assured of Rs. 1 Crore along with return of premium paid for all the years excluding first year premium and hence less sum assured was available for payment at the end of the policy term i.e. on maturity.
Jeevan Saral plan is a participating plan and eligible policyholders under this plan may get Loyalty Addition depending on experience of the Corporation. This amount is an add-on benefit payable to the eligible policyholder on exit as a result of death/maturity/surrender over and above the usual benefits applicable under the plan. Loyalty addition is declared each year based on Page 11 of 15 actuarial investigation of the Corporation undertaken as per Section 26 of the LIC Act 1956 and applicable Rules and Regulations of IRDAI.
In the instant matter, the Appellant's Jeevan Saral policy no. 838632220 matured on 28.11.2022. The Discharge voucher for Maturity claim intimation dated 09.11.2022 was sent to the Appellant in which following details was mentioned: Payments → Maturity Sum Assured: Rs. 3490400/- (as mentioned in Original Policy Bond) + Loyalty Addition: Rs. 16,57,940/-(475 3490400/- /1000) Total payable Rs. 51,48,340/-. The Appellant submitted duly signed discharge voucher along with his bank details without any objection and payment of maturity claim was processed on 09.11.2022.
From above, It is clarified that the Maturity Sum Assured paid to the Appellant under his Jeevan Saral policy is correct and as per Terms and condition of the plan. The contention of the Appellant that as the Jeevan Saral plan being an endowment plan with profit, his total premium paid should be returned with profit over and above his premium, as paid under all endowment plans, at the time of maturity is misplaced and incorrect.
Further, it is clarified that the respondent organisation does not maintain Plan- wise accounting of commission, mortality charges, administration expenses, fund accumulated and invested under a Plan, profit realized from invested fund under a plan, as sought by the Appellant at Second Appeal stage. The Management of the fund accumulated by the respondent organisation follows a life pattern as part of common pool and invested according to regulations under Insurance Act, 1938 and the relevant provisions for the same are enclosed herewith (2 pages).
2. Further, in his second Appeal, the Appellant is seeking clarification under Query no. 4 of the RTI Application alleging that he has incurred financial loss and wants to know why the respondent organisation paid Rs. 26,67,000/- against premium of Rs. 13,55,000/-, while paying Maturity claim in case Shri Deepak R. Kothari, another Jeevan Saral policyholder.
It is clarified that in case of Shri Deepak R Kothari's Jeevan Saral policy, the Maturity Sum Assured was printed as Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rs.25 lakh) and the Death benefit Sum assured was printed as Rs. 3,94,900/- on the policy bond due to an inadvertent typo-error, wherein the amounts payable at Maturity and on Death got Interchanged. On the date of maturity, the policyholder lodged his claim for Maturity Sum Assured Rs. 25,00,000/- as printed on the policy bond. However, the respondent organisation informed the policy holder that only Rs. 3,94,000/- along with loyalty addition of Rs. 1,67,832/- is payable on Maturity and the amount printed on the policy bond against Maturity Sum Assured is a typo-error.
Page 12 of 15The policyholder went into litigation against the respondent organisation and the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 11.12.2018 upheld the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra which directed the respondent organisation to pay total Rs. 26,67,832 with interest from date of maturity till actual payment as the respondent organisation had not informed the policyholder about the typo-error in amounts payable at Maturity and on Death, during the policy period.
The Appellant's contention that as per the above decision, he is entitled to receive Rs. 1,11,62,640/- le double the amount of premium paid (Rs. 55,81,320/-) by him, is baseless and devoid of any merit. The Appellant is informed that under his policy no. 838632220, there is no typo-error in the amounts printed on the policy bond. The Maturity amount paid as explained above is correct and as per the Terms and condition of the policy mentioned in the Schedule on the first page of the policy bond. The decision taken in Shri Deepak R Kothari's case is not applicable in the instant matter.
The CPIO can only provide information as available with the Office of Public Authority and the Appellant has been provided appropriate information at all stages ie RTI Application and Appeal stage. The domain of adjudication in the matter is out of purview of RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance if any as RTI forum is not a grievance redressal forum.
Also, the Appellant vide his another RTI Application Reg. No. LICWZ/R/P/24/00208 dated 09.05.2024 had sought for all the documents under his Jeevan Saral policy no. 838632220 from inception of the policy till maturity and the CPIO, Ahmedabad Division has provided the same on 20.05.2024. No further information remains to be provided in the matter.
It is also pertinent to mention here that the combined decision dated 16.12.2024 of Hon'ble CIC in CIC case No: CIC/LICOI/A/2023/139138 and CIC/LICOI/A/2023/143877 - Shri Kamlesh Bhai Navnitlal Gandhi (brother of the Appellant) Vs. CPIO/Ahmedabad, LIC of India, in exactly the same matter is reproduced as under:
"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records finds no infirmity in the replies furnished by the Respondent earlier and now vide written submission dated 04.12.2024, which is treated as revised and updated reply, as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matters."Page 13 of 15
In view of above clarifications provided to the queries of the RTI application and to the new points raised in second appeal, the Hon'ble CIC is requested that the second appeal filed by Shri Vinay Bhai Navnítlal Gandhi, be dismissed summarily.
The hard copy of the submission is sent by registered post to the Appellant at his address mentioned in second appeal-S-1***********, Ahmedabad - 380052 on 06.02.2025 Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri B C Janani, Manager (CRM)/CPIO present through video- conference.
The Respondent, by placing reliance on his averred written submissions stated that point-wise replies with relevant information have already been provided to the appellant initially in both the cases and upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission a revised reply in the form of written submissions have been supplied to the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records finds no infirmity in the replies furnished by the Respondent earlier and now vide written submission dated 06.02.2025, which is treated as revised and updated reply, as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Appellant neither appeared during hearing to convert the submissions of the Respondent nor filed any counter arguments to agitate the matter further.
Additionally, in the light of the submissions given by the Respondent it is noted that similar issue have already been adjudicated by this bench vide File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/139138 and CIC/LICOI/A/2023/143877 decided on 16.12.2024 with the following observations-
"...The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records finds no infirmity Page 14 of 15 in the replies furnished by the Respondent earlier and now vide written submission dated 04.12.2024, which is treated as revised and updated reply, as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Appellant neither appeared during hearing to convert the submissions of the Respondent nor filed any counter arguments to agitate the matter further.
Intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matters."
The ratio of the above said order holds good for the instant case as well. The Commission has no power to review its own order on the same subject under the RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be granted in instant cases.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, LIC of India, Customer Relations Management Department, Ahmedabad Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Tilak Road, Ahmedabad - 380001 Page 15 of 15 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)