Central Information Commission
Dr. Satish Bhat vs State Bank Of India on 3 October, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/623284
Dr. Satish Bhat ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Bengaluru ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 22.12.2022 FA : 27.01.2023 SA : 12.05.2023
CPIO : 04.01.2023 FAO : 17.02.2023 Hearing : 30.09.2024
Date of Decision: 03.10.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
(i) Regarding email with SUB: Grievance Redressal Request: MIS-SELLING unwanted insurance with Home Loan and Business Loan without informing REAL Costs, please provide me a copy of your communication to me that mentions.
a. Response by GM3 to me, upon my request to GM3 to intervene following failure of DGM to ensure RACPC has clarified to me - why the documents regarding my loan, which mention that Rin Raksha policy is issued only Page 1 of 6 on my request and it is optional, were not provided to me, immediately once these documents were collected by RACPC Mangalore in Nov 2020. b. Response by GM3 to me, upon my request to you GM3 intervene following failure of DGM to ensure RACPC has provided to me - records to indicate I have been told at the time of sanction of home loan, that my existing insurance policy is sufficient to provide risk cover for the HL sanctioned and accepted by me.
c. Response by GM3 to me, upon my request to GM3 to intervene following failure of DGM to ensure RACPC has provided me with a copy of my application form towards insurance policy Number, issued towards risk cover for 931366641 (Loan closed on 9th July 2019, insurance policy valid till 2030).
(ii) Please provide me with a copy of the communication by GM3 to me, upon my request to GM3 to intervene regarding failure of DGM to ensure that RACPC has provided me with details of the meeting, where RACPC has explained details of the product to me as a customer, before I consented to apply for the Rin Raksha insurance. This is after my HL was sanctioned in Nov 2020. After the DGM mentioned in his email on 28.10.2022 "We as a banker always explain the product to our customers in detail", I have requested for the below details, which should have been provided to me as indicated by the DGM. a. Name & designation of the SBI official who made the detailed descriptions to me.
b. Date of the said meeting.
c. Location d. Start time & end time.
e. Material (Product Brochure or anything else) given to me as customer, containing the product descriptions.
I have requested GM3 to intervene after both DGM & AGM RACPC failed to respond to my repeated requests.
Page 2 of 6(iii) Please provide me with a copy of communication by GM3 with me, that mentions GM3's response regarding failure of both DGM & AGM RACPC to ensure I am provided with a copy of documents that convey - Rin Raksha policy is specially designed policy & better than other alternative options for purpose of Home Loan - which is conveyed on record by both DGM & CM Credit in office of DGM Mangalore. I have requested them to provide copy of below communications, but they have not responded, and I have requested you to intervene.
a. a copy of email clarification, that explains how Rin Raksha policy is better than other policies.
b. documents/brochures provided by SBI to customers, that explain how the Rin Raksha policy is superior to other policies.
(iv) Please provide me with a copy of GM3's reply to me, that show response by GM3 Shri Anurag Joshi after I sent him a Whatsapp message on 6.10.2022 at 19:46HRS and on 8.10.2022 at 17:57HRS, on his official mobile number 94489 93003. These have been sent following GM3's own instructions in email to me dated 30.8.2022: "in case of any issue, please feel free to message me". You have initially replied to my message on 30.8.2022, with a reassurance that your team will address my issue, and hence I sent the updated messages.
(v) Please provide me with a copy of GM3's communication with me, that show his response after my email to him dated 14.11.2022 to convey my concern that my number seems to have been blocked in his phone, whereby my communications will not be received on his phone.
(vi) Please provide me with a copy of communication by GM3 with me, that show his intervention to ensure my grievances are being handled to my satisfaction. This is as per the reassurance conveyed to me in his email dated 30.8.2022: "I am sure your issue is being handled to your satisfaction", and my multiple emails to GM3 asking for clarifications to the last reply dated 27.10.22, with explanation by SBI DGM, AO - 6, etc. Page 3 of 6
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Emails from GM NW 3 to the applicant enclosed.
The applicant is seeking a copy of the response given to him by General Manager NW 3 to his various queries as numbered from 1.2 and 3 (with sub queries 1-6) in the RTI application. However, after verifying the communications between GM NW3 and the applicant, it is noted that the response given to him by GM NW3 are attached along with the application by the applicant himself. Despite of this We are enclosing herewith the response given by GM NW 3.
For the repeated queries from the applicant, for query no 1,2 and 3(with sub queries 1-6), GM NW3 has given a consolidated reply on 19/10/2022 assuring the applicant that his team was working to attend to the applicant's repeated queries and observations and that a detailed response is being sent to him again.
GM NW 3 sent mail to DGM B&O AO Mangalore on December 15, 2022, instructing him to respond to the applicant's queries. Email from GM NW 3 to DGM enclosed."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.01.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA's order dated 17.02.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.05.2023.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Kiran Manoli, Assistant General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought information regarding mis- selling of financial product i.e. insurance of home loan, through SBI Life Rin Raksha Insurance policy in force from 01.12.2020 in SBI Mangalore, Karnataka. He contended that the information with respect to point nos. 2 (a) to (d) of the RTI application was not satisfactory and the Mangalore Office had not provided the requisite information, so far.
Page 4 of 6He further stated that even instructions given by a higher officer to their subordinate on record have not been followed, and the documents regarding his own loan account have been denied to him.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had furnished point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 04.01.2023. Besides, details regarding officers who described the insurance product details to him, in connection with the home loan involved personal details, disclosure of which was exempted as per provisions under Section 8 (1) (g) and (j) of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent replied on 04.01.2023. It may be noted that the 04.01.2023. The appellant contended that he was not satisfied with the response given with respect to point nos 2 (a) to (d) of the RTI application. Although, 2 (a) of the RTI application involved personal information, no exemption was claimed by the respondent to that effect. Moreover, the data with respect to point nos 2 (b) to (d) of the RTI application did not attract any exemption clause and appropriate reply could have been given to the appellant. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide revised response to the appellant with respect to point nos 2
(a) to (d) of the RTI application within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The reply given in respect of the remaining points in the RTI application is found to be reasonable. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 03.10.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO State Bank of India, CPIO, Premises & Estate Department, Local Head Office, New Annexe Building, No.-65, St. Mark's Road, Bengaluru-560001
2. Dr. Satish Bhat Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)