Information regarding compliance of a CIC order against New India Assurance was sought - PIO: No information was available - CIC advised the appellant to seek compliance of CIC order rather than filing another RTI application for seeking its compliance
Appellant had sought information with respect to compliance of a CIC order against New India Assurance Co Ltd - PIO: No further information was available - CIC advised the appellant to ask for compliance of CIC orders rather than make another RTI application for seeking compliance of the earlier decisions on RTI request made by him; The appellant was also advised to enclose the relevant documents like the RTI application and the decision thereon while seeking compliance to the CIC order, in future - CIC directed the respondents to intimate the compliance depending upon the availability of the records keeping in view the record retention schedule
Date of Decision : January 27, 2016
1. The appellant Shri Anant M. Nandu submitted RTI application dated 12.01.2015 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai seeking information with respect to CIC order dated 22.6.2012 in case no. CIC/DS/A/2011/002267 and circular signed/issued by Chief Manager, Dr M.C Khamrai, which included number of policy holders identified & included in the list of policy holder to whom excess premium was charged, date of the preparation of such list and its display at operating offices, number of policy holders approached to claim refund in person or by email etc.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 19.02.2015 intimated the appellant that no additional information was available apart from the information provided by Dr. M. C Khamrai in case no. CIC/DS/A/2011/002267 and it was not possible to provide the information from point A to F as refunds to senior citizen were allowed for a temporary period till changes in the premium were incorporated in the software after the revision of the premium for senior citizens under mediclaim policy. There was no separate refund code hence all types of refunds was booked under the same code and, therefore, it was not possible to provide the information regarding this refund. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority (FAA) on 4.05.2015. The FAA vide order dated 21.5.2015 held that list of policy holders or refundees would attract section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005. Thereafter dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant approached the Commission on 24.06.2015 with a request to provide complete information.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had sought information with respect to compliance of order passed by Hon’ble CIC (under reference no. CIC/DS/A/2011/002267 order dated 22.2.2012) against New India Assurance Co Ltd. The CPIO had vide his letter dated 19.2.2015, received the information from the authority concerned and forwarded to the appellant intimating that no further information was available while intimating that the information sought under points A to F was not possible, giving reasons. The appellant obviously was not satisfied with the information received in compliance to the CIC order. Therefore, he requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information as sought by the appellant in his RTI application, the compliance to which he had sought through the instant RTI application.
4. The appellant was advised to ask for compliance of CIC orders rather than make another RTI application for seeking compliance of the earlier decisions on RTI request made by him. The appellant is also advised to enclose the relevant documents like the RTI application and the decision thereon while seeking compliance to the CIC order, in future. In the present case, the appellant has sought compliance to a decision dated 22.6.2012 through his RTI application dated 12.1.2015 which itself indicates that the appellant was not serious about seeking any information/compliance. Now that the matter has been already taken up, the respondents are directed to intimate the compliance depending upon the availability of the records keeping in view the record retention schedule within three weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Anant Meghji Nandu v. New India Assurance Co Ltd, in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001542