Information regarding appellant’s policy issued by HDFC Insurance Co. was sought - CIC: provide the letter of IRDA regarding approval of HDFC Savings Assurance Plan along with the copy of the proposal form excluding third party information
1. The appellant, Shri Manik Kumar Pal, submitted RTI application dated 2 August 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Deptt. of Financial Services, New Delhi, seeking information regarding his policy no. 10061590 issued by HDFC Insurance Co., through a total of 13 points.
2. Vide reply dated 31 August 2012, CPIO denied information on point nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12 & 13 on the ground that the information sought could not be provided as the details of the plan referred to in the application was not furnished and informed that the replies on other points would be given by other CPIOs and by another reply dated 4 September 2012, CPIO denied information sought in point nos. 6, 7, 9, 10 & 11 on the ground that the requested information did not fall within the definition of “information” as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 17 September 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 12 October 2013, FAA remanded the matter back to the CPIO (Actuarial) to provide information to the appellant on point nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12 & 13. In compliance of the above stated FAA order, vide reply dated 12 November 2012, CPIO (Actuarial) furnished pointwise information to the appellant.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA gave him incomplete and wrong information.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Manik Kumar Pal, participated in the hearing from Kolkata. The respondents, Shri D.N.K. Chakravarthy, CPIO (Actuarial), Shri A. Venkatramanna, CPIO (F&A), Ms. Sarita, CPIO (Consumer Affairs Department) made their submissions from Hyderabad.
5. The appellant in his primary submission said that whether the product as specified in his RTI application is a Savings Assurance Plan is not clarified by the CPIO’s reply.
6. The CPIO submitted that the policy bond enclosed by the appellant indicates that it is HDFC Savings Assurance Plan which is a nonlinked participatory product and has been approved by the IRDA as a ‘life insurance policy product’. The appellant submitted that information provided by the CPIO is incorrect and sought the copy of the approval letter of the IRDA regarding HDFC Savings Assurance Plan along with the copy of the proposal form.
7. The CPIO offered to provide the same except the HDFC application form as same stands as commercial confidence of third party.
8. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide the letter of the IRDA regarding approval of HDFC Savings Assurance Plan along with the copy of the proposal form excluding any information disclosure of which would harm the commercial confidence of third party, to the appellant. The information is to be provided within 15 days. The appellant may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if any.
Citation: Shri Manik Kumar Pal v. Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000934/MP