Central Information Commission
Reeta Sabharwal vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 9 May, 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/2023/108275
Reeta Sabharwal .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
LIC of India, Delhi DO -
II, "Scope Minar," North
Tower, 9th Floor, Laxmi
Nagar, Dist. Centre, Delhi - 110092 .....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06-05-2024
Date of Decision : 09-05-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05-11-2022
CPIO replied on : 07-12-2022
First appeal filed on : 19-12-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 04-01-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11-02-2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05-11-2022 seeking the following information:
"I am the Proposer of the above-mentioned Policy # 120742050 & 121004764 for my "disabled" daughter Isheeta. These Policies are fully paid-up since long. I am a Citizen of India and am a Resident Indian. Currently, I am 63+ years of age. I draw your attention to the Budget speech of the Hon'ble Finance Page 1 of 6 Minister, Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman on February 01, 2022 in the Parliament with regard to the subject matter.
Quote.......
For Insurance Policies bought by parents/guardians of disabled children, the payout can now be given to the dependent even if the parent is alive, if he is over 60 years. So the premium will qualify for deduction under Section 80DD even if the parent is alive and over 60. Earlier, the annuity/lump sum was paid only on the death of the policyholder. Unquote As reported by the Economic Times.
The Budget announcements would have since then become a Finance Bill enacted by the Lok Sabha and now a Law.
I have the following queries in this regard:-
(1) When will relief be provided to the Policyholder as promised by the Hon'ble Finance Minister?
(2) Will the Bonus of Rs 100 per Rs 1000 per annum be honoured? (3) Will the benefit be as an Annuity or as a onetime Lump sum payment? (4) Or would it be a mix of Annuity & a one time Lump sum. For example 80% Annuity & 20% one time Lump sum?
(5) Please share the "Payment Terms" as envisaged in the Jeevan Aadhar Policy, at the onset."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 07-12-2022 stating as under:
"Query No.1: Futuristic query does not come under the preview of "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005.
Query No.2: Applicant is seeking opinion by posing a question, which does not fall under the purview of "information: as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act2005. However, in the spirit of RTI, we may inform that, as per policy terms and conditions guaranteed addition (and not Bonus) is payable @Rs. 100/- per thousand sum assured for each completed policy year for which the policy was in full force.
Query No. 3 & 4: Applicant is seeking opinion by posing a question, which does not fall under the purview of "information: as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act2005.Information sought by her is not clear and specific. However, in the spirit of RTI, we may inform that, payment will be done as per policy Terms and Conditions of the Jeevan Aadhar policy.Page 2 of 6
Query No.5: The mentioned policies were issued under JEEVAN AADHAR- WITHOUT PROFITS (Plan 114), this is a limited payment whole life policy, where claim amount is payable to the named handicapped dependent on the death of life assured only. As per policy condition, "If the policy is in force for full Sum Assured in the event of death of life assured twenty percent of the amount comprising of the Basic Sum Assured, Vested Guaranteed Addition and terminal Addition if any such amounts being hereafter referred as Notional Sum Assured, will be payable in lump sum and the balance eighty percent of the said Notional Sum Assured will be utilize to provide an annuity for 15 years certain, and for life thereafter on the life of the handicapped dependent, based on the age last birthday of the said handicapped dependent on the date of claim.""
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19-12-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 04-01-2023, held as under:-
"In this regard, it is to inform, that the Appellant is seeking opinion by posing a question, which does not fall under the purview of "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. However, in the spirit of RTI Act 2005, we inform you that, announcement made by Hon'ble Finance Minister, Government of India, regarding LIC policy in 2022 budget is applicable from the financial year 01.04.2022. Accordingly the budget announcement regarding LIC policy in 2022 budget will be applicable to all policies introduced on or after 01.04.2022.
We are returning herewith the Postal Order No. 52F 016512 for Rs. 10/- as the same is not required in case of appeal."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sabharwal husband and authorized representative of the Appellant present in person.
Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tikoo, CPIO and Ms. Anjali Agarwal present in person.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.Page 3 of 6
The representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, submitted that he is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent on RTI application. He raised his grievance that there are certain flaws in Jeevan Aadhar Policy for disabled persons. He further submitted that even after specific directions of Hon'ble Union Finance Minister, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Insurance Ombudsman, the Public Authority has neither amended the documents till date in the said policy's terms and conditions or made any payment of annuity to the disabled insured person. The Appellant further raised fresh queries at the stage of second appeal regarding what action was taken by respondents after passing of the order by Hon'ble Apex Court and after statement made by Hon'ble Union Finance Minister on the floor of the Parliament.
Further, during the hearing, an opportunity was granted to the representative of the Appellant to upload his relevant documents in support of his contentions. But no documents were received from the Appellant.
The Respondents, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of their written submissions, which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"The mentioned policies were issued under LIC's JEEVAN ADHAR-WITHOUT PROFIT plan (Plan 114/99/20). As per Term and Condition mentioned on the policy bond itself, If the policy is in force for full Sum Assured, in the event of death of life assured twenty percent of the amount comprising of the Basic Sum Assured, Vested Guaranteed Addition and terminal Addition if any such amounts being hereafter referred as Notional Sum Assured, will be payable in lump sum and the balance eighty percent of the said Notional Sum Assured will be utilize to provide an annuity for 15 years certain, and for life thereafter on the life of the handicapped dependent, based on the age last birthday of the said handicapped dependent on the date of claim. The amount will be paid to the handicapped dependent or any other person for the benefit of handicapped dependent.
Sir, the queries raised under RTI application and First Appeal were duly replied to by the CPIO and FAA. Now the appellant has raised further queries in Second Appeal which were not part of original RTI application, and hence the applicant has expanded the scope of RTI."Page 4 of 6
The Respondent further submitted that till date no such directions are given to the Public Authority for any amendment in the said policy.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the response given by the CPIO on her RTI application.
In response, the Respondent vide its letter dated 07.12.2022 provided point- wise reply/information to the Appellant wherein factual position has been informed to the Appellant.
It further appears that the Appellant in her second appeal is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking information as envisaged under the RTI Act and has also been challenging the correctness of the information provided. Despite this, the CPIO has provided a response to the Appellant; in the spirit of RTI Act.
The Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has Page 5 of 6 to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under: 0 "20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Further, the Appellant had raised fresh queries at the stage of her first appeal and second appeal. The Appellant is not allowed to expand the scope of her RTI enquiry at appeal stage. No disclosure can, therefore, be directed to be made in the appeal of the Appellant.
Further, the Appellant is advised to approach appropriate forum to redress her grievance.
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 of India, Delhi DO - II, "Scope Minar," North Tower, 9th Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Dist. Centre, Delhi - 110092.Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)