Central Information Commission
Tarun Aneja vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 30 June, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2022/141048-UM
Mr. Tarun Aneja
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Life Insurance Corporation Of India,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Divisional Office-Rohtak,
Sco-3,4,5, Sector-I, Huda, Rohtak, Haryana-124001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.06.2023
Date of Decision : 30.06.2023
Date of RTI application 04.05.2022
CPIO's response 19.05.2022
Date of the First Appeal 20.05.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 13.06.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 29.08.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points, as under:-
The CPIO, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, vide letter dated 19.05.2022stated as:-Page 1 of 2
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 13.06.2022stated as:-
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present through AC Respondent: Mr Hoshiyar Singh Manager CRM, Present through AC The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that he had sought information regarding the amount claimed/received by Mr Jagdish for his daughter's treatment. He said that he is the husband of the daughter of Mr Jagdish and there is an ongoing matrimonial dispute between them.
The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant pertains to a third party, and that in furtherance of it, notice has been served under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, to the third party Mr Jagdish, who has denied sharing his or his daughter's information with the appellant. Therefore, the information sought cannot be furnished as it is exempted under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an apt reply has been furnished to the Appellant. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] द्वदनांक / Date: 30.06.2023 Page 2 of 2