Central Information Commission
Srinivas A vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 12 March, 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/LICOI/A/2024/642740
Srinivas A ......अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Life Insurance ....प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Corporation of India
Date of Hearing : 11.03.2026
Date of Decision : 11.03.2026
Information Commissioner : Shri Surendra Singh Meena
Relevant Facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application : 15.07.2024
PIO replied on : 13.08.2024
First Appeal filed on : 20.08.2024
First Appeal Order on : 18.09.2024
2nd Appeal received on : 04.10.2024
CIC/LICOI/A/2024/642740 Page 1 of 6
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"The subject matter of the information requested by the above applicant is related to Life Insurance Corporation Of India Therefore, I am forwarding the same to you for your information and urgent action. You are requested to consider the application under various relevant provisions of RTI Act 2005."
CPIO reply dated 13.08.2024 is stated as under:
Query 1: Team LIC claims they had sent me mails dated 11.03.2022 and 14.03.2022, however such mails. were NEVER received by us, to prove this, we even collected latest reports (as available below) from my service provider Rediff.com - any Government stakeholder could also verify with the subject Ticket # with team rediff.com, including team DFS.
Reply: The certified copy of the mails dated 11.03.2022 and 14.03.2022 is enclosed herewith for ready reference.
Query 2: Team LIC has Still Not Offered an Explanation on why above 2 emails were still not delivered to me from LIC domain, however they keep writing that mails are sent, team LIC just refuses to read/acknowledge customer proofs. Even the 2 LIC elderly senior stakeholders, who visited us assured that a probe would be done, No answers received from LIC as of date.
Reply: The emails dated 11.03.2022 and 14.03.2022 were sent to your email id with copy marked to sz_crmps mail id of the respondent organisation. The mail sent to you was not returned as "Undelivered" to the department. The Officials, who visited you in this regard, informed CIC/LICOI/A/2024/642740 Page 2 of 6 that they had handed over a hard copy of the emails which was sent to you. The Applicant may probe the issue of non-deliverance of mail with his service provider as it was not returned "undelivered" to the department.
Query 3: Team LIC has Still Not Offered a Senior Stakeholder callback, that some Secretary level officer would call us, this is against the commitments offered by 2 LIC elderly Senior stakeholders during in- person discussion on 21.03.2022, No answers (or) call back received from any Senior most stakeholder from LIC as of date.
Reply: The Senior Officials who visited you at your home had assured to check only the portal related issues for which you had made a complaint. ETC..
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2024 stated as under:-
"Many Thanks For Disposing Off A Genuine Rti Filed With Dfs Completely In Your Organization Favour Both Incorrectly And Inadequately Too. Strangely You Have Disposed Off A Dfs Rti Petition By Selectively Answering A Few And Ignoring A Few, Both In Your Favour, What More To Add Here?Basic Question Arise Is This How You Offer Service Delivery For Someone Who Pays More Than Rs. 2 Lakhs Premium As A Nuclear Family And More Than Few Crores In Premium As An Extended Family.Not Convincing With The Kind Of Your Reverts And Approach In Service Delivery, Even Rti Reply Is Unconvincing.
Kindly Pfa A Document, Which Is Once Again Written To Highlight Your Organization Faults And Irrespective Of Any Disposal In This Appeal, This Common Man Patron Is Not Worried.
As Even Your 2 Elderly Senior Stakeholders During In-Person Residential Discussion Failed Us On 21.03.2022, What More To Add ??.CIC/LICOI/A/2024/642740 Page 3 of 6
Just Zero Credibility On Lic On It Service Delivery For All The Contraries And Harassment Till Date.
Dear Lic, Kindly Do Not Harass Your Common Man Patron Anymore Anytime In Any Manner, Rather Treat Us Respectfully For The Money Collected By You For Your Organization Welfare Too.
Since Many Decades Now, We Are Associated With You As A Family, You Owe Us With Your Service And Not Your Harassment.
The FAA vide order dated 18.09.2024 stated as under:
"Reply: -(a) Now that it is obvious that records of policy holders with brand LIC are mapped by customer ID, unsure what is the harm in mentioning those customer Ids on policy documents itself, as this eliminates out the possibility of duplication of customer IDs pertaining to a single customer (policy holder), who could take umpteen policies PAN India with multiple KYCs. It is pertinent to note Aadhar, PAN is primary documents collected by various organizations for KYC, POI and POA, so this should be a welcome measure to all stakeholders. This also rules out the necessity of seeking multiple documents multiple times and the documentation process could be simplified by referring to one customer ID, towards which KYC, POI and POA are already registered by brand LIC for a specific customer and if the same customer is applying for a fresh policy, just the customer ID needs to be shared, making the documentation just simple and enabling quicker processing of a policy with brand LIC.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The appellant remained absent.
The respondent Mr. Ramesh, Manager/CPIO, was present through video conference.CIC/LICOI/A/2024/642740 Page 4 of 6
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply to the RTI application has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 13.08.2024. A written submission of the respondent is stated as under:-
"Reply to Q. no. 1 and 2 of the original RTI :
The certified copies of the mails dated 11.03.22 and 14.03.22 were enclosed and provided along with the RTI reply.
Reply to Q. no. 3,4, and 10 of the original RTI:
No information as per Section 2 (f) of RTI Act 2005 is sought. The queries raised by the Applicant are in the nature of grievance for which replies have been provided..
Reply to Q no 5 of RTI Calls from/ to LIC customer Zone are not recorded. Regarding the call made to Sri Srinivas, the Customer Zone Official has explained that she had spoken in a polite manner.
Reply to Q. no. 6,7,8,9,,11 12 & 13 of the original RTI The queries are in the nature of calling for reasons, explanations, and suggestions or providing opinions and recommendations and not information as per Sec 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. However replies were provided during RTI stage."
Decision:
In the light of the above facts, the Commission noted that the respondent has provided reply to the appellant vide letter dated 13.08.2024. The appellant remained absent during hearing and it appears that 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: 11.03.2026 CIC/LICOI/A/2024/642740 Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy Ramesh Babu Krishnan (रमेश बाबू कृष्णन) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. Srinivas A
2. The CPIO LIC of India, Divisional Office II, C-47, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai- 600040.CIC/LICOI/A/2024/642740 Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)