Central Information Commission
Alok vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 30 April, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/LICOI/A/2023/605048, CIC/LICOI/A/2023/610644,
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/612900 and CIC/LICOI/A/2023/615683.
Alok Kumar .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
LIC CRM Dept., Jeevan
Prakash, 25, K.G. Marg,
New Delhi, 110001. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26-04-2024
Date of Decision : 29-04-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Note - The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for disposal
as these are based on similar RTI Applications of the same Appellant.
Relevant facts emerging from appeals:
RTI applications filed on : 06-09-2022, 30-09-2022, 25-10-2022
CPIO replied on : 29-09-2022, 25-10-2022, 21-10-2022
First appeals filed on : 04-10-2022, 28-10-2022, 25-11-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 28-10-2022, 22-11-2022, 27-12-2022.
2nd Appeals/Complaint dated : 27-01-2023 and 25-02-2023.
Page 1 of 23
1. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/605048
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06-09-2022 seeking the following information:
1- Inform the rate of interest applicable/earned on the contribution since year 2006-07 till the current year, i.e. 2022-23. (Please do not send your circulars, as it contains different rates applicable for different Fund Size. Please inform a single rate of interest for each year, which is applicable/earned on my contribution.) 2- When was the rate of interest for year 2021-22, and 2022-23 declared? 3- My contribution started from April 2006. Please provide yearly statement (Opening Balance, Contribution, Interest on Opening Balance, Interest on Contribution) since year 2006-07 till the latest monthly contribution for the year 2022-23.
4- What is the periodicity of calculating the interest of different subscribers, is it calculated monthly or yearly?
5- Has the interest for the year 2021-22 been worked out? If yes, please inform have you shared the statement of DMRC subscribers for the year 2021-22, to DMRC?
6- Please inform the date of sharing of statement of DMRC subscribers for the year 2020-21 and 2021-22, with DMRC?
7- How is the interest calculated for a subscriber, is it derived from any software or is it calculated manually or is the interest worked out with the help of Excel Sheet, by feeding the rate of interest and monthly contribution?
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29-09-2022 stating as under:
Rate of Interest for Financial year 2022-23 is not yet declared. Reply to Point No.(2): For the year 2021-22 interest rate was declared after March ending and for the year 2022-23 interest rate is not yet declared. Reply to Point No.(3): The details of total contribution and accumulated contribution of member Sh. Alok Kumar LIC ID 26 as on 29.09.2022 is being attached. Year wise balances are not available. Reply to Point No.(4): Interest rate is calculated on yearly basis. Reply to Point No.(5): Yes, the interest for the year 2021-22 has been worked out. Fund statement already shared with DMRC.Page 2 of 23
Reply to Point No.(6): Fund statement shared with DMRC for the financial year 2020-21 is 10.10.2021 and for the financial year 2021-22 is 06.05.2022. Reply to Point No.(7): Interest amount is calculated by software only.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04-010-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 28.10.2022, held as under:-
"The details of yearly statement(Opening Balance, Contribution, Interest on Opening Balance, Interest on Contribution) since 2006-07 till latest monthly contribution for the year 2022-23 of all existing employees of DMRC was already provided to your employer DMRC every year. System does not generate Year wise balances of single employee. Hence, sought information cannot be provided."
2. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/610644 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30-09-2022 seeking the following information:
1- Please inform the name, designation, email id, office address, where any complaint regarding the error in the calculation of the figures in statement, may be sent to get it rectified.
2- Please also inform the name, office address, email id of each authority till Insurance Ombudsman who can be approached for grievance redressal.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25-10-2022 stating as under:
1) Manager (P&GS) LCC Deptt. is the Competent Authority where complaint regarding error in the calculation in statement may be sent for rectification. Email ID is [email protected] and postal address is Life Insurance Corporation Of India, P&GS Department, 6th Floor, Jeevan Prakash Building, 25 K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2) For grievance redressal you may visit the following Site- www.licindia.in Login to Customer Portal---Grievance registration.Page 3 of 23
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28-10-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 22-11-2022, held as under:-
The queries raised under your online RTI application dated 30/09/2022 received vide Regd. No. LICNZ/R/E/22/00349 replied on 25/10/2022 found correct and upheld. However it is informed that applicant may approach for grievance redressal on below mentioned.
3. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/612900 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30-09-2022 seeking the following information:
(1) contribution amount paid by DMRC for the above policy for EACH MONTH (2) Date of credit in your account, and (3) Mode of payment viz. Cheque/On-line transfer for such amount received by you since 01.04.2006 till 13.10.2022.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25-10-2022 stating as under:
1) The details of contribution amount paid by DMRC for Sh Alok Kumar Id- 26 Policy No. 32581 as on date is being attached herewith.
2) Date of credit of amount is the contribution date as mentioned on the attached sheet.
3) The information sought is not available.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28-10-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 22-11-2022, held as under:
The query no.1 raised under online RTI application dated 13/10/2022 received vide Regd. No. LICNZ/R/E/22/00365 replied on 09/11/2022 found correct and upheld as the information pertains to the whole group so third-party information cannot be provided under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.Page 4 of 23
Reply of query no 2 is found correct and upheld.
In response to query no. 3 data is not available for individual, however find enclosed herewith sheet no 1 to 5 containing details of payment from DMRC from 05/2006 to 11/2022 for the group.
4. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/615683 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25-10-2022 seeking the following information:
(1) The 3rd column of details submitted by you in the list starts with no. 2.
Next no. after 3 is 5 instead of 4.
Why the no's are not in series. What is the reason of missing no.s viz. 1,4, 6, 8 to 16, 37, 39 and so on.
(2) It is noticed that some years do not have 12 contributions like 2008-09, 2013-14, 2019-20. What is the reason?
Please inform how the interest in case of contributions related to year 2008- 09, 2013-14 & 2019- 20 have been calculated?
Whether the rate applicable to these years only have been considered for all contributions related to these years (which may not have been considered in that year for any reason), or interest has been considered and calculated in a later year in which the contribution for those years may have been considered?
(3) LIC shares yearly statement for a subscriber with DMRC, periodically. In that statement for the year 2013-14, the contribution during the year has been shown as Rs. 28882, which is also the total of contribution as S.No. 97 to 105, in reply to RTI application referred above.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21-11-2022 stating as under:
Page 5 of 231) The applicant is seeking clarification by posing a question which does not come under the definition of information as per section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005.
2) The applicant is seeking clarification by posing a question which does not come under the definition of information as per section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005.
However in the spirit of RTI it is informed that Interest rates are calculated on the basis of the date of receipt of monthly contribution from the Master Policy Holder.
3) This is system generated calculation for each year of all existing employees which is shared and reconciled with master policy holder (DMRC) periodically and we are unable to provide these details for a single employee.
4) The details of information regarding the contribution of an employee for a particular month is received from DMRC through soft copy.
5) The contract of master policy no. 321581 is between LIC and master policy holder (DMRC). Hence information pertains to policy no. 321581 cannot be provided to applicant.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30-11-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 27-12-2022, held as under:-
1) These numbers are the series allotted as per contribution received from DMRC (Master Policy Holder). The contribution from DMRC is reflected in our information provided. The missing contribution no. as per the list already provided to the applicant does not pertains to LIC ID 26. 2) Monthly contributions for each employee is adjusted as per the receipt of contribution amount and list provided by DMRC (Master Policy Holder). These Interest rates are calculated on the basis of the date of receipt of monthly contribution received from DMRC.
3) No. Monthly contributions for financial year 2008-09 and 2013-14 are adjusted as per the amount received from DMRC. Credit of interest on the contribution amount is given to the employee on the basis of the amount received by LIC from DMRC (Master Policy Holder).Page 6 of 23
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ms. Sunita Matta, Manager (CRM)/CPIO accompanied with Ms. Veena Bhutale, A.O., Ms. Tripta Sharma, A.O. and Mr. G. L. Bajaj, S.B.M. P & GS LIC Delhi present in person.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
Appellant reiterated the contents of his Second Appeals, relevant extracts of which (case-wise) are reproduced below in verbatim-
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/605048.
"Appellant:
I am Alok Kumar, an Employee of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. I subscribed to the group Super Annuation Policy of LIC (Policy No. 321581, ID No.-26) for which the employer deducts 7.5% of Basic Salary and contributes 2.5% additionally and submits the total of 10% of Basic Salary of all members of the Group Plan, monthly.
LIC provides the annual statement to DMRC showing total contribution during the year, Interest thereon, Opening Balance, Interest on Opening Balance contribution, and Closing Balance (which becomes the Opening Balance for the next year).
Information Sought Query No. 3- My contribution started from April 2006. Please provide yearly statement (Opening Balance, Contribution, Interest on Opening Balance, Interest on Contribution) since year 2006-07 till the latest monthly contribution for the year 2022-23.
Reply- The details of total contribution and accumulated contribution of member Sh. Alok Kumar LIC ID26 as on 29.09.22 is being attached. Year wise balances are not available.
First Appeal- The Reply given 'Year Wise balances are not available' is not correct. Please refer to my earlier RTI application LICNZ/R/2018/50354 dt.Page 7 of 23
01.11.18, and your reply. I was provided the required information till year 2017-
18, There is no reason why Year Wise Balances should not be available. Please provide the information asked for in Query 3.
Reply in Appeal- The details of yearly statement (Opening Balance, Contribution, Interest on Opening Balance, Interest on Contribution) since 2006-07 till latest monthly contribution for the year 2022-23 of all existing employees of DMRC was already provided to your employer DMRC every year. System does not generate Year wise balances of single employee. Hence, sought information cannot be provided.
Grounds of Appeal 1- In reply to the RTI application dt. 06.09.22, LIC said- Year wise balances are not available. How then, LIC provided the details sought (upto year 2017-18) earlier in RTI application LICNZ/R/2018/50354 vide their letter dt. 28.11.2018.
2- LIC furnishes in reply to RTI query 'Year wise balances are not available'. In reply to first appeal LIC says 'Sought information can not be provided'. Both the replies are not the same.
3- LIC said in reply to first appeal that System does not generate Year wise balances of single employee. How then they shared the details annually to DMRC or to me earlier?
4- In reply to the first appeal LIC said '......till latest monthly contribution for the year 2022-23... was already provided to your employer'. How come, LIC provided the statement for the year 2022-23 in their reply dt. 28.10.22?
5- LIC has never provided the detail sought for, for the year 2006-07 and 2007- 08, even to DMRC, and it is also evident in reply no. 2, vide their letter dt. 28.11.18 in reply to RTI application LICNZ/R/2018/50354.
6- From the yearly statement provided by LIC to DMRC (which is shared with employees), interest on Opening Balance in the year 2018-19 is Rs. 37905/- on the Opening Balance of Rs. 489233/-. The resultant percentage is 7.75. Whereas in reply to RTI application dt. 06.09.22, LIC has replied that interest for the year 2018-19 is 7.85%. Which of these figures is correct?
7- I know my contributions for a particular year, but in very few years, the amount of contributions match with the total contributions shown in the statement provided in reply to RTI query.
Page 8 of 238- DMRC sends LIC monthly contribution to LIC, whereas on perusal of the statement of contributions with reply in response to RTI application dt. 06.09.22, it can be seen that no. of contributions shown by LIC varies erratically. In the year 2008-09 there are only 6 contributions shown, whereas in the year 2009-10 there are 19 contributions shown?
I have reasonable grounds that the my contributions in the policy have not been accounted for correctly, and it has resulted in wrong interest on contributions."
Respondent submitted that point-wise reply against each RTI Application has already been provided to the Appellant within stipulated time. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice, a revised point-wise reply has been uploaded on the Commission's web-portal vide letter dated 19-04-2023, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below.
"REPLY
1. Applicable Interest rates under Policy no.321581 from 2006-07 are mentioned below:
2006-07-8.70% 2007-08--9.25% 2008-09---9.25% 2009-10---8.65% 2010-11---9.30% 2011-12---9.40% 2012-13---9.40% 2013-14---8.85% 2014-15---9.10% 2015-16-8.45% 2016-17---8.35% 2017-18-7.75% 2018-19---7.85% 2019-20---7.15% 2020-21---7.25% 2021-22-7.45% Rate of Interest for Financial year 2022- 23 is not declared.
2. For the year 2021-22 interest rate was declared after March ending and for the year 2022-23 interest rate is not yet 7. How is the interest calculated for a subscriber, is it derived from any software or is it calculated manually or is the Page 9 of 23 interest worked out with the help of Excel Sheet, by feeding the rate of interest and monthly contribution?
declared.
3. The details of total contribution and accumulated contribution of member Sh.
Alok Kumar LIC ID 26 as on 29.09.2022 is being attached. Year wise balances are not available.
4. Interest rate is calculated on yearly basis.
5. Yes, the interest for the year 2021-22 has been worked out. Fund statement already shared with DMRC.
6. Fund statement shared with DMRC for the financial year 2020-21 is 10.10.2021 and for the financial year 2021-22 is 06.05.2022.
7. Interest amount is calculated by software only.
Respondent submitted that point-wise reply against each RTI Application has already been provided to the Appellant within stipulated time. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice, a revised point-wise reply has been uploaded on the Commission's web-portal vide letter dated 19-04-2023, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below.
"....On non receipt of CPIO's reply, the appellant filed Online first appeal dated 04.10.2022 was replied on 28.10.2022.
QUERY REPLY Query 3 was for providing yearly The details statement(Opening of statement(Opening Balance, Contribution, yearly Balance, Contribution, Interest Interest on Opening Balance, Interest on on Opening Balance, Interest on Contribution) since 2006-07 till latest Contribution) since 2006-07 till latest
monthly contribution for the year 2022-23. monthly contribution for the year The Reply given "Year Wise balances are not 2022-23 of all existing employees of available" is not correct. Please refer to my DMRC was already provided to your earlier RTI application LICNZ/R/2018/50354 employer DMRC every year. System dt. 01.11.18, and your reply. I was provided does not generate Year wise the required information till year 2017- 18. balances of single employee. Hence, There is no reason why Year Wise Balances sought information cannot be should not be available. Please provide the provided. information asked for in Query 3.
Respondent emphasized that yearly statements of employee's contribution/statement, individually are not maintained by the LIC. Further, the parties to the group insurance scheme are the LIC and the concerned employer, Page 10 of 23 to that extent disclosure of information to the employee would attract Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission counselled the Respondent, that Appellant being the beneficiary of the group Insurance Scheme is entitled to know the features and his contribution, etc. and the bar of any exemption is not tenable in this case under the RTI Act.
2. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/610644 "....Grounds of Appeal 1- In reply to the RTI application dt. 30.09.22, LIC informed the address of 'Manager (P& GS), Jeevan Prakash Building, 25, K.G. Marg, and in reply to first Appeal they provided the address of 'Secretary (P& GS)'.
LIC did not provide the name, address, email id of authorities to be approached for Grievance Redressal before one needs to approach Insurance Ombudsman.
2- LIC informed that for Grievance Redressal there is link on their Web-site. But, I am sorry to inform that there is no clear indication of authorities to approach, progressively in case one has to approach Insurance Ombudsman.
3- The details of authorities as available on web-site is not updated.
The RTI query LICNZ/R/E/22/00318 dt. 06.09.22, replied on 29.09.22, which is under second Appeal was replied by Shri V.S. Lakra, and email id of Appellate Authority informed in this reply was '[email protected]', and when we click on the link of of Grievance Redressal Officer at Zonal Level of website of LIC a list appears, and the name of Sh. V. S. Lakra is there at the top.
4- A Screenshot of Grievances Tab is attached with this appeal. Various links have been provided there. Here is what I observed.
a- The e-mail id provided in reply to RTI query and first appeal 'BO- [email protected]' and '[email protected]' respectively is not there in any of the list which is uploaded on the web-site, in the links provided.
b- If we click the link of Grievance Redressal Officer at the Divisional Level a list appears and at S. No. 2 of that list the name of Shri Vineet Kumar Mehrotra, and email id '[email protected]' appears.Page 11 of 23
I wish to point out that Sh. V. K. Mehrotra is the same person who has replied the RTI query which is the subject matter of this second Appeal.
On the basis of point 3 and 4 above, it may be seen that the Grievance Redressal Officers are the same persons who have been replying RTI queries. So, the expecting that LIC or its officers may be transparent or they may be serious in addressing my grievances may not be correct."
Respondent submitted that point-wise reply against each RTI Application has already been provided to the Appellant within stipulated time. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice, a revised point-wise reply has been uploaded on the Commission's web-portal vide letter dated 19-04-2023, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below.
"...On non receipt of CPIO's reply, the appellant filed Online first appeal dated 28.10.2022 was replied on 22.11.2022.
QUERY REPLY Query 2 is not answered. On your The queries raised under your online RTI Web site, clear chain of application dated 30/09/2022 received vide authorities is not Regd No. LICNZ/R/E/22/00349 replied on understandable. Please reply 25/10/2022 found correct and upheld. whom should i write to, in case However it is informed that applicant may my grievance is not redressed approach for grievance redressal on below with the first authority or with mentioned address-- The Secy. (P&GS) LIC subsequent authorities and so Of India Jeevan Prakash Building 7th Floor, on, before approaching 25, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001 Email id:nz Insurance Ombudsman. [email protected]
Respondent submitted that point-wise reply along with relevant information has already been provided to the Appellant.
3. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/612900 "....Grounds of Appeal 1- In reply dt. 09.11.22 to the query in RTI application dt. 13.10.22, the web-site had the reply of covering page only (without any attachment). I sent a mail to the email-id provide on letterhead on 10.11.22 (copy of mail attached with this Page 12 of 23 appeal). This mail was replied stating that the attachment is being provided with RTI- reply being sent by Post, and the attachment to the RTI-reply was also shared by mail on 10.11.22.
But the attachment indeed contained incorrect information as was my inkling in the mail sent by me.
The attachment contained the contribution for my Id in the Superannuation Policy, instead of total contribution amount in a month for the said Policy, which is what I sought.
2- The attachment provided with the RTI-reply was earlier provided to me in reply to the RTI Query LICNZ/R/E/22/00318 dt. 06.09.22, which is now subject matter of second appeal with CIC vide CIC/LICOI/A/2023/60508 dt. 01.02.23.
3- Even in the reply to the first appeal, First Appellate Authority said that the reply provided to the RTI query is correct.
In the same line, he also mentions that the information sought pertained to the whole group so third party information cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. I do not agree or believe that the information sought by me was a third party information. I am also unable to understand how if, the information provided in response to Query 1 of RTI was correct and, it can also be a third party information (as has been stated by First Appellate Authority).
4- Reply to the 2nd Query is also found correct and upheld by First Appellate Authority, whereas the date of credit of total contribution amount of Superannuation Policy, which I sought was never provided.
5- In response of Query No. 3 in RTI application, it was replied that 'information sought is not available', and this query has been replied by First Appellate Authority as 'data is not available for individual, however find enclosed herewith sheet no. 1 to 5 containing details of payment from DMRC from 05/2006 to 11/2022 for the group'.
I have some observations on this reply:
a. How can the information which was sought in Query No. 3, be for an individual, as has been mentioned by First Appellate Authority? b. The attachment provided with reply to RTI query has 182 contributions shown till 31.03.22, whereas the attachment provided with reply to First Appeal has 189 entries?Page 13 of 23
c. I asked for the Mode of payment viz. Cheque/ on-line transfer, and the attachment mentions of a third category of transfer of money i.e 'OTHERS'. d. If the information as per attachment with reply of first appeal is assumed to be correct, it implies that LIC has not accounted for my contributions correctly (see 182 vs 189 in 'b' above).
5- I mentioned in First Appeal dt.15.11.22 that 'If you are really not aware about it, the money trusted with LIC may be at stake. I appeal/request for correct reply/information to be furnished to me.' Again, despite my mentioning iin the mail sent on 10.11.22 (mentioned in point 1 above) that: :
'I will certainly go for 1st Appeal or 2nd Appeal as i have observed that there is no transparency in the replies being furnished by LIC, once i receive the hard copy.' Or, I must remind you,........... not only results in financial loss to susbcribers in future, but also betrays the trust posed by them in LIC.
In view of above, i request you to review the reply to be sent for my queries and furnish Correct replies only, at least for one pending RTI query filed on 25.10.22 Vide No. LICNZ/R/E/22/00379.
My request was not heeded to, and forget the review of the reply by First Appellate Authority, the reply to the then pending query vide LICNZ/R/E/22/00379 dt. 25.10.22 was also not replied correctly, even in First Appeal, and I am helpless and will have to file second Appeal in that matter too.
Respondent submitted that point-wise reply against RTI Application has already been provided to the Appellant within stipulated time. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice, a revised point-wise reply has been uploaded on the Commission's web-portal vide letter dated 19-04-2023, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below.
"On non receipt of CPIO's reply, the appellant filed Online first appeal dated 15.11.2022 was replied on 12.12.2022.Page 14 of 23
QUERY REPLY
My query was regarding total The query no.1 raised under online
contribution amount paid by DMRC RTI application dated
for the Superannuation Policy no.- 13/10/2022received vide Regd. No.
32581 for each month since LICNZ/R/E/22/00365 replied on
01.04.2006 till 13.10.2022 and the 09/11/2022 found correct and upheld
reply furnished is the information as the information pertains to the
about my contribution only. whole group so third party
information cannot be provided
2. I wanted date of credit of total under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
contribution of all subscribers for the Reply of query no 2 is found correct policy in a month" in your bank and upheld.
account. So the information provided by LIC is incorrect. In response to query no. 3 data is not available for individual, however find
3. The reply is strange. LIC says that enclosed herewith sheet no 1 to 5 the information is not available for containing details of payment from my query, whether the contribution DMRC 05/2006 to 11/2022 for the by the subscribers of DMRC in a group.
month (for the period 01.04.06 to 13.10.22) was be cheque or on line transfer of money. How it could be that, such information is not available with you.
Respondent submitted that group insurance policy was executed between the LIC and DMRC who is the employer of the Appellant, disclosure of complete information to the Appellant would impinge on the privacy of other third party employees; therefore, it could not be shared with the Appellant in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, information concerning Appellant has already been provided to him.
4.CIC/LICOI/A/2023/615683.
".....Grounds of Appeal 1- The information provided in reply to the RTI Query or in reply to First Appeal was incorrect/ wrong/ misleading and has been furnished by the officials in a shallow manner which defeats the intent and purpose of RTI Act.Page 15 of 23
2- The manner in which the replies have been given, defies the Tag line of LIC 'Har Pal Apke Saath'.
3- The manner in which the replies have been furnished show the bad intent of Officials, of not providing the information, even after the inciting language of 1st Appeal, which challenged the officials to accept that they do not know how the interest is calculated? (Please refer 'Reply 3' of Grounds of Appeal-First Appeal) Still the Official replying the First Appeal proved that he is not interested in not taking any blame on LIC/or its Officials that they do not know how the interest is calculated.
4- How we can have faith in an Organization, which still have Majority stake by Govt?, and why should not I assume that Public money is not at stake, when even after my pointing out the gaps, and mistakes, instead of admitting/ explaining, they avoid answering the queries.
5- When I am a contributor in a Policy which also includes my contribution, how the Officials of LIC think, that I can not be replied the query (Query 5) related to the total contribution, and how this information is a THIRD Party Information. I do not agree that the information sought by me is a third party information...."
Respondent submitted that point-wise reply against each RTI Application has already been provided to the Appellant within stipulated time. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice, a revised point-wise reply has been uploaded on the Commission's web-portal vide letter dated 19-04-2023, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below.
QUERY REPLY
Grounds of Appeal 1) These numbers are the
1. Reply 1. When most no.s in your statement series allotted as per
are in series, the missing no.s mentioned viz. contribution received from
1,4, 6, 8 to 16, 37, 39 and so on may be missing DMRC (Master Policy
contributions. Holder). The contribution
And I must inform you that there is difference from DMRC is reflected in
in contribution on my policy (by DMRC side) our information provided.
and the contribution shown by you till 31.03.22 The missing contribution
in the statement provided by you. And I have a no. as per the list already
right to know where did my money go. provided to the applicant
Page 16 of 23
Consequently, the information sought is not 'a does not pertains to LIC ID
clarification'. 26.
Please provide the answer to my query. 2) Monthly contributions for
Reply 2. DMRC has submitted you monthly each employee is adjusted
contribution. If I do not find 12 contributions as per the receipt of
shown in any year viz. 2008-09, 2013-14, 2019- contribution amount and
20 in your statement, my accumulations may list provided by DMRC (
be earning lesser interest in that year, and Master Policy Holder).
even if the contribution for a year may have These Interest rates are
been considered in next year, it would still earn calculated on the basis of a lesser interest than required, as interest rate the date of receipt of has been reducing every year, generally. monthly contribution Consequently, the information sought is not a received from DMRC.
clarification'. 3) No. Of monthly
Please provide the answer to my query. contributions for financial
Reply 3. I asked for interest calculation for year 2008-09 and 2013-14
either 2008-09, or year 2013-14, because these are adjusted as per the
two years have least no. of contributions. amount received from
DMRC. Credit of interest on
I desired that a manual calculation or method the contribution amount is
may be shared with me for any of the two given to the employee on
years, and I did not ask for interest calculation the basis of the amount for all the years. received by LIC from DMRC (Master Policy Holder).
I will presume that, the person furnishing the reply to this query doesn't know how the system calculates the interest, or even you do not rely on the correctness of calculation of interest, in the event this query is not answered correctly.
Reply 5. I presume that you may be aware that there may be mismatch in the date of credit of contribution by DMRC, and the date of credit in individual subscribers as shown in the statement shared by you, due to your fault.
Respondent apprised the Commission that the columns which are redacted from the disclosed information does not reflect the contributions of the Appellant, Page 17 of 23 rather it relates to details of DMRC's contribution; therefore, it was redacted from the reply in view of section 10 of the RTI Act.
On the advice of the Commission, Respondent agreed to provide calculated month-wise interest to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties at length and perusal of the records, observes that the reply furnished by the Respondent is not up to the mark as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Being a beneficiary of the Group Insurance Scheme on which his pension also hinges, he cannot be treated as third-party. This general flaw in Group Schemes has been noticed in the past also and suitable advisory has been given to the respondent public authority.
Hence, the Respondent are directed to provide an updated information to the Appellant case-wise as under -
1. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/605048 - Since the Appellant has restricted his claim to Point No. 3 of RTI Application, therefore, Appellant's yearly statement of contribution sheet (i.e. Opening Balance, Contribution, Interest on Opening Balance, Interest on Contribution) on the subject-referred Group Insurance Scheme, as sought for be provide within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of receipt of this order.
2. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/610644 - Updated and revised information including the name and designation of the officers indicating the hierarchy of official till Insurance Ombudsman where any complaint regarding the error in the calculation of the figures in statement, may be sent by the Appellant to get it rectified. This information be given within one week of the date of receipt of this order.
3. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/612900 - For point No. 1 of RTI Application- Give the details of total contributions made by DMRC in the subject policy from 01-
05-2006 till the date of filing of the RTI Application. For Point No. 2 and 3 of RTI Application, date of credit of amount in the LIC account and mode of Page 18 of 23 payment of contribution against the Policy under reference be intimated within 10 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
4. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/615683- For Point No. 1 and 2 of the RTI Application, give clarifications regarding missing of the columns in the statement in writing as mentioned during the hearing. For point No. 3 of RTI Application, give the details/data of monthly interest details of the Appellant for the period of 2008-2009 as prayed by the Appellant and further clarified during the hearing, within 10 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The employees i.e. the ultimate beneficiaries entrusted their money to the Public Authority with the faith that all their details and money are maintained in a manner that the policyholder/nominee can get the same at any time from public authority. But when the applicants get the response under the RTI Act that the details cannot be shared since they are third party, the whole purpose of the RTI Act would be defeated. Further, the entrustment maintained by the general public on the Public Authority becomes weakened.
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 Page 19 of 23 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:
"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.)]."
Notwithstanding the above, considering the gravity of issues flagged by the Appellant, the Commission is disappointed with the approach of the Respondent Public Authority in denying the information to the beneficiary on a technical ground of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission notes that there appears to be TRUST DEFICIT in all the Group Schemes cases of which have been heard by the Commission. It is true that the Group Policy is proposed and bought by the Employer and Insurer (in this case LIC) trusts the list and information provided by the employer as correct and also believes that the employer disseminates all the information to its employees. It is also a fact deserving serious consideration that the employer in turn is recovering 75 % of the Premium from the employees (ultimate beneficiary of the Policy/Scheme) while (supposed to be) paying remaining 25% as employers' share. Hence, the employees are the true policy holders (though indirectly) and NOT the Page 20 of 23 employer/signatory to the Policy purchased on behalf of the employees. There are innumerable instances from so many cases where employers have failed to pay their share (for various reasons) and resultantly have not sent any premium/contribution to the insurer including the amount deducted from the pay/salary of the employees. Hence, the intended beneficiaries suspect the correctness & timeliness of the employers' contribution and interest payable by the insurer besides the general mistrust that in the unfortunate event of their passing away, their dependents and legal heirs may be cheated by a collusion between the employer and insurer. The respondent LIC being a public sector life insurance company and India's largest insurance company carries this moral responsibility to not only allay this widespread apprehension but also give to its ultimate beneficiaries of Group Schemes an unshakable confidence by adopting a robust mechanism of upfront and voluntary disclosure. In the technology enabled world of today, it is very much possible to collect the contact details of email and mobile number of the insured(s) covered in Group Schemes and electronically disseminate the information directly to them also beside sending it to the buyer/employer.
Therefore, it is imperative for LIC to establish a system that facilitates flow of essential information where an employee is NOT privy to contract BUT deductions are made from his salary month-wise by his employer for paying the premium in the name of securing his/her future (and that of their dependents), particularly in death and injury situations. In such cases, veil of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act is not available.
This bench has dealt with multiple cases where policy holders (buyers of Group Policy) neither disclose to the employees anything about the Group Policy not to the nominees of employees that he/she was made a nominee by the employee. Thus, on demise of covered employee, the legal heir/nominee has no means to know whether the deceased was covered under a group Policy and/or whether anyone was made a nominee. Under such circumstances, the policy holders (buyers of Group Policy)/employer may claim the amount of policy just by conveying the fact of demise of the employee concerned but on receipt of claim decide not to pay to the dependents/heirs of the beneficiary employee with or without a reason. Gap in such vital information affords opportunities for potential scams happening and going unnoticed. One such suspected instance was brought to the notice of commission in the case of George Thomas v. LIC Page 21 of 23 bearing File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/161212 decided on 29-01-2024 and an advisory to the same public authority was issued to strengthen the information dissemination mechanism.
Upon a careful examination of the facts, the Commission hereby directs again the LIC to promptly take necessary measures to ensure the disclosure of information concerning the Group Policies, particularly in instances where the beneficiary to the Group Insurance Policy/Scheme does not have a direct access to their account statement so that they do not have to resort to the RTI channel.
The above directives are issued in the best interest of the public interest, as it is crucial to safeguard indirect policy holders' rights and that of their dependents/ legal heirs, to uphold transparency, and to mitigate potential legal liabilities.
A copy of this order be placed by the CPIO before the concerned Competent Authority through FAA for compliance.
FAA to ensure compliance of this direction.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
THE FAA LIC CRM Deptt., Jeevan Prakash,25, K.C. Marg, New Delhi, 110001.Page 22 of 23 Page 23 of 23
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)