Central Information Commission
Sameer Das vs Office Of The Insurance Ombudsman, ... on 19 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/INSBH/A/2024/640157
Sameer Das ......अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Office of the Insurance ....प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Ombudsman
Date of Hearing : 18.02.2026
Date of Decision : 18.02.2026
Information Commissioner : Shri Surendra Singh Meena
Relevant Facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application : 19.06.2024
PIO replied on : 26.06.2024
First Appeal filed on : 05.07.2024
First Appeal Order on : 02.08.2024
2nd Appeal received on : 09.09.2024
CIC/INSBH/A/2024/640157 Page 1 of 8
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"I, would like to seek information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The information sought is regarding the handling of the complaint filed by Mr. Ramesh Kumar Jena (father of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jena) with case ID 27494498, concerning the rejection of the PMJJBY claim. Details of the Complaint:
Complainant Name: Mr. Ramesh Kumar Jena Deceased Name: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jena Complaint ID: 27494498 Date of Email Submission: 9th April 2024 Information Sought:
1. Submission Process Clarification:
i) Please provide the official guidelines and policies that mandate the submission of complaints via postal hard copies rather than email.
ii). When was this policy implemented, and how has it been communicated to the public?
2. Action Taken on Email Complaint:
i) What action was taken on the complaint ID 27494498 filed via email on 9th April 2024?
If no action was taken on the email complaint, please provide the reasons for the same.
ii) Is there any internal policy or rule that restricts the processing of complaints received through email?
3. Processing of Complaints:
i) How does the office ensure that complaints received through email are acknowledged and processed?
ii) Are there any provisions or exceptions under which email complaints are accepted and processed without the need for hard copies?
4. Follow-Up Actions:
i) What steps were taken to inform the complainant, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Jena, about the requirement for postal hard copies?
ii) What are the measures in place to assist complainants who may face difficulties in submitting hard copies due to various reasons?
5. Handling of Similar Complaints: CIC/INSBH/A/2024/640157 Page 2 of 8
i) Please provide statistical data on the number of complaints received via email and postal hard copies over the past two years.
ii) Out of these, how many email complaints were processed without requiring hard copies?
6) Accountability and Resolution:
i) What mechanisms are in place to ensure accountability and timely resolution of complaints, including those related to PMJJBY claims?
ii) Provide details of any training or instructions given to the staff regarding the handling of complaints received through different mediums.
Please provide the information requested by me at the earliest, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005."
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"With reference to your application vide-Registration no:
INOBN/R/E/24/00006 Dt. 19.06.2024 through on line, seeking some information under RTI Act-2005, and we wish to inform you as under
1. Submission process:
a. provide the official guidelines and policies that mandate the submission of complaints via postal hard copies rather than E-mail Ans. As per I.0. rules 2017 the mandate is to send the application in writing. However as per amendment I.O. Rules 2021 electronic media also permitted.
b. when was this policy implemented and how has it been communicated to the public?
Ans: As mentioned above. Available in public domain.
2. Action taken on E-mail complaint a. What action was taken on the Complaint ID 27494498 filed via E-mail on 9th April 2024?
Ans: Third party information as exempt u/s 8(i) (j) of RTI Act 2005 b. If no action was taken on E-mail complaint, please provide the reasons for the same. Ans: Not applicable.
c. Is there any internal policy or rule that restricts the processing of complaints received through E-mail?
CIC/INSBH/A/2024/640157 Page 3 of 8 Ans: No
3. Processing of complaints:
a. How does the office ensure that complaints are received through E-mail are acknowledged and processed?
Ans: Not an information u/s 2 (f) of RTI Act 2005 b. Are there any provisions or exceptions under which E-mail complaints are accepted and processed without the need for hard copies?
Ans: No express provision. email complaints are accepted when the complainant expresses his inability to send hard copies.
4. Follow up Actions:
a. What steps were taken to inform the complainant (R. K. Jena) about the requirement for Postal hard copes?
Ans: Third party information u/s 8(i)(j) b. What are the measures in place to assist complainants who may face difficulties in submitting hard copies due to various reasons?
Ans: They can log in to our website https//www.cioins.co.in to lodge their complaint online.
5. Handling of similar complaints:
a. Please provide statistical data on the number of complaints received via E- mail and postal hard copies over the past two years.
Ans: No such information available regarding email. Total Numbers of complaints received through postal hard copies: 525 cases b. Out of these, how many E-mail complaints were processed without requiring hard copies?
Ans: Not applicable
6. Accountability and Resolution:
a. What mechanisms are in place to ensure accountability and timely resolution of complaints including those related to PMJJBY claims?CIC/INSBH/A/2024/640157 Page 4 of 8
Ans: 90 days for settling of all disputes from the date of receipts of all requirements. We usually disposed of complaints within 60 days.
b. Provide details of any training or instructions given to the staff regarding the handling of complaints received through different mediums.
Ans: Training to all is imparted online through video conferencing with our central office regularly. The last such V.C was conducted on 13th march 2024."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was not provided. The FAA vide order dated 02.08.2024 stated as under:-
"Reply :- Regarding Point no.1 The Insurance Ombudsman Rule 2017 and Amendment in IO rule 2021 can be downloaded as follows. www.cioins.co.in>Rules>Ombudsman Rule 2017> File (as amended till 9.1.2023). There is mention of inclusion of electronic media in this file.
Regarding Point no.2 For the Complaint id 27494498 file vide mail dated 9.4.2024, reply mail was sent on the very same day calling for some requirement. The complainant was contacted telephonically also.Regarding Point No. 3
The complaint received through E- mail are acknowledged thru mail & processed in our CMS module (Complaint Management System) if all requirements are fulfilled & received documents are legible, continuous & arranged properly & authenticity is verified.
Regarding Point No.4.
For mail received from Mr. R K Jena on 9.4.2024, the office informed him to send hard copies through mail on the very same day as the scanned documents CIC/INSBH/A/2024/640157 Page 5 of 8 are not legible (not visible properly), not sent in a compact file( scattered manner) He was also telephonically advised to make online complain (alternatively) through our portal www.cioins.co.in."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The appellant remained absent.
The respondent Mr. Samvit Das, Administrative Officer (Bhubaneswar), was present through video conference.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply to the RTI application has been given to the appellant vide letter dated 26.06.2024. A written submission dated 06.02.2026 of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
"01. Regarding Point no.1 There is no scope to provide a direct link to the relevant amendments. Moreover, the same information is available in the website of Council of Insurance Ombudsmen in the form of rules amended up to date. The Appellant was only to browse the rules to get the information. The excerpts of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules 2017 are given hereunder 14-(2) The complaint shall be in writing, duly 1 [signed, or made by way of electronic mail or online through the website of the Council for Insurance Ombudsmen,] by the complainant or through his legal heirs, nominee or assignee and shall state clearly the name and address of the complainant, the name of the branch or office of the insurer against whom the complaint is made, the facts giving rise to the complaint, supported by documents, the nature and extent of the loss caused to the complainant and the relief sought from the Insurance Ombudsman.CIC/INSBH/A/2024/640157 Page 6 of 8
The allegation of delay is unfounded as the RTI query was raised on 19.06.2024 and reply was given on 26.06.2024 despite the availability of a mandated 30 days window.
Moreover, the EX-CPIO has tried to give available information in the best possible manner considering the information sought for was third party information.
02. Regarding point no.2 The EX- CPIO has acted strictly as per provisions of Section 8(1)(j) Moreover, a mail was indeed sent to the third party on the same date. The undersigned has stated that because of large amount of money involved in every award, we do not encourage sharing third party information. As the present Appellant had no public interest involved, the EX- CPIO has correctly, denied the information. However, for the kind perusal of the commission, we are providing a copy of the reply sent from the Insurance Ombudsman office on the same day.
03. Regarding point no.3 The Appellant's version of "my complaint" reference no.27494498 is wrong as the same belongs to someone else. Moreover, this complaint no.27494498 was presumably raised before another organization. However, this organization has replied promptly to the EMAIL containing reference to the no.27494498 by another complainant on the same date.
04. Regarding point no.4 The EX-CPIO, due to the monetary issues and absence of involvement of any public interest has rejected the request by taking umbrage of Section 8(1)(j) Moreover, the original complainant after receipt of the aforesaid Annexure-1 submitted all the required documents in hard copy. The matter was registered on 03.07.2024 and disposed of on 07.08.2024 as per merit."CIC/INSBH/A/2024/640157 Page 7 of 8
Decision:
In the light of the above facts and perusal of the available record, the Commission noted that the respondent has provide reply vide letter dated 26.06.2024. The appellant remained absent during hearing and it appears the appellant is not interested in pursuing the case further, accordingly, the appeal is disposed.
Sd/-
(Surendra Singh Meena) (सुरेंद्र ससिंह मीना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 18.02.2026 Authenticated true copy Ramesh Babu Krishnan (रमेश बाबू कृष्णन) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. Sameer Das
2. The CPIO Office of the Insurance Ombudsman, 62, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar - 751009 CIC/INSBH/A/2024/640157 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)