Central Information Commission
A Naga Vamsi Krishna vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 10 April, 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/2025/103424
A Naga Vamsi Krishna ......अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: LIC ....प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Date of Hearing : 09.04.2026
Date of Decision : 09.04.2026
Information Commissioner : Shri Surendra Singh Meena
Relevant Facts Emerging from Appeal:
RTI application : 04.11.2024
PIO replied on : 12.11.2024
First Appeal filed on : 18.11.2024
First Appeal Order on : 02.12.2024
2nd Appeal received on : 24.01.2025
CIC/LICOI/A/2025/103424 Page 1 of 8
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"1) Sri Eddnapudi. Mastan Rao working as a LIC agent in your well Established Organization Having the LIC Agent code of 0025567H from 31.10.1992 to till date, Please confirm and please provide related photo copies.
2) I need the details of Sri E. Mastan Rao done LIC different policies from 2018 to 2024, Please provide the photo copy of policy numbers only, remaining details please mask it and share the photo copies as per RTI Act 2005.
3) Sri E. Mastan Rao Working as a Deputy Tahsildar from Yeddnapudi Mandal along with LIC agent in your organization LIC of India. LIC supports these type of activities please conform and share guideline photo copies.
4) Sri. E. Mastan Rao Suprvisor Code is: 462670 please provide the details along with photo copies.
5) What is the exact number of different LIC policies he did please provide the data (from 31.10.1992 to till date) unnecessary details please mask and provide photo copy.
6) LIC Act Clearly saying that "Public servants cannot act as LIC agents of Life Insurance Corporation of India. LIC is governed by the Insurance Act 1938, LIC Act 1956, LIC Regulations 1959, and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act 1999" now in case of E. Mastan rao what actions, punishments you impose please share photo copies of note files, corresponding files, mail communications regarding the issue.
7) Being a Branch Manager, Mr. G. John Victor activities are supposed to be such that these kinds of pitfalls and irregularities and how he is going to identify.CIC/LICOI/A/2025/103424 Page 2 of 8
8) Being a Branch Manager, Mr. G. John Victor is encourages this type of activities please explain."
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"With reference to your application received dt. 7.11.2024 under RTI Act, 2005, regarding details of Agency of Sri E.Mastan Rao, Code No. 255-67H, We would like to inform you that the disclosure of information is exempted under Section 8 (1)(j) and 8(1)(d) of RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2024. The FAA vide order dated 02.12.2024 stated as under:-
"The appellant has submitted in his appeal about Agency of Eddanapudi Anuradha, Code no.01692 67H which he has not mentioned in his RTI Application. At Appeal Stage Appellant has requested for information other than that made in his RTI Application.
The decision of CPIO is upheld. Requested information is denied under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(J), 8(1)(h) and 2(f) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
The queries (6), (7) & (8) in the RTI Application are in Question form and hence did not come under the definition of Information as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005.
Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides for preferring second Appeal to the Central Information Commission within 90 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Please note that LIC of India is an all India Organisation and State Information Commission has no purview in respect of RTI matters relating to LIC of India."CIC/LICOI/A/2025/103424 Page 3 of 8
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The appellant was present through video conference.
The respondent Mr. K. Babu, Manager, was present through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that he has sought record/documents related to Mr. Eddnapudi Mastan Rao, who is a public servant and also working in LIC as agent since 1992, but no action has been taken against him, by the competent authority. The appellant further submitted that wife of Mr. Eddnapudi Mastan Rao is also an agent in LIC. The appellant also stated that no record/documents related Mr. Eddnapudi Mastan Rao working as agent has been provided by the respondent.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant has sought personal information of Mr. Eddnapudi Mastan Rao (third party), hence denied u/s 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that Mr. Eddnapudi Mastan Rao had worked as an agent.
A written submission dated 06.04.2026 of the respondent is stated as under:-
"The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.11.2024 seeking information regarding:
Agency details of Sri. E.Mastan Rao, policy and business details, Allegations of dual employment Internal actions and correspondence. The CPIO, vide reply dated 12.11.2024, denied certain queries under provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant preferred a First CIC/LICOI/A/2025/103424 Page 4 of 8 Appeal dated 18.11.2024, which was disposed of by the First Appellate Authority on 02.12.2024, upholding the CPIO's reply.
The Respondent has acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. There is no malafide intention or deliberate denial of information.
The information sought by the Appellant pertains to:
Third Party Personal and service related details, Agency /business data of LIC, Internal correspondence and administrative actions and Clarifications, explanations and opinions.
Exemption under Section 8(1) (j)- Personal Information:
The requested information relates to third party personal information, including employment and agency details. Disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, and in larger public interest has not been established.
Exemption under Section under section 8(1)(d):
The details relating to LIC agency business, policy data and performance are commercially sensitive in nature. Disclosure would adversely affect the competitive and fiduciary interests of LIC.
Queries not covered under Section 2(f):
Several queries raised by the Appellant are in the nature of seeking explanations, justifications and opinions. These do not fall within the definition of Information under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
Without prejudice to the exemptions claimed it is submitted that, Preliminary verification was under taken by the competent authority. The matter was referred to the District Collector, State Government CIC/LICOI/A/2025/103424 Page 5 of 8 of Andhra Pradesh for verification of employment status. Explanation was called for from the concerned individual. The matter involves service conditions and administrative jurisdiction of the A.P. State Government Revenue Department concerned. Any enquiry, suspension, show cause notice, or disciplinary action falls under service matters of AP state Government.
The Respondent has examined the RTI application diligently and applied exemptions as per law. There is no suppression or concealment of information.
The First Appellate Authority has examined all aspects of the case and upheld the CPIO's reply.
The agency of Sri. E. Mastan Rao, code no 25567H, was terminated with forfeiture of Renewal Commission, under Regulation, 16 (1)(C) & 16(e) of LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 with effect from 10.04.2025.
The details of earnings of Sri. E.Mastan Rao, from the financial years 1992-1993 to 2001-2002 were furnished to The Collector and Dist. Magistrate of Baptla, A.P. on 14.07.2025.
In this connection, we wish to reiterate that LIC Agents are governed by the provisions of LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 and not by the provisions of LIC of India (staff) Rules, 1960, as he is not an employee of LIC.
The same was informed to Dr. A. Naga Vamsi Krishna vide letter dated 12.09.2025.
It is further submitted that the Agency pertaining to Ms. E. Anuradha (Code No 169267H) wife of Sri. E.Mastan rao, was terminated on 01.04.2015 i.e. prior to the receipt of RTI application."CIC/LICOI/A/2025/103424 Page 6 of 8
When queried by the Commission how the number of policies done by the agent, his identity card and other related documents, as sought on point nos. 1 to 5, can be denied u/s 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act, the respondent could not submit proper justification for the same. The respondent during hearing submitted that he will provide available information sought, on the above said points, to the appellant, in their revised reply.
Decision:
In the light of the above facts, the respondent is directed to provide revised reply to the appellant, within three weeks after receipt of this order. With this direction, the appeal is disposed.
Sd (Surendra Singh Meena) (सुरेंद्र ससिंह मीना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 09.04.2026 Authenticated true copy Ramesh Babu Krishnan (रमेश बाबू कृष्णन) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. A Naga Vamsi Krishna CIC/LICOI/A/2025/103424 Page 7 of 8
2. The CPIO Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Kennedy Road, P.B. No. 24, Machilipatnam - 521001 CIC/LICOI/A/2025/103424 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)