Information regarding LIC policy of below poverty line segment individual - FAA dismissed the appeal holding that the original applicant and the person preferring the first appeal are two different persons - CIC: Order of FAA upheld
An advocate filed RTI application seeking information regarding LIC policy in the name of R Dineshbabu who is below poverty line segment - applicant sought action taken on letters dated 17 July 2010 and 2 September 2010 by the BPL person - PIO: the Grievance Cell of Consumer Affairs Department does not entertain complaints written by Advocates or agents or any third parties on behalf of policyholders - Dineshbabu preferred first appeal – FAA dismissed the appeal holding that the original applicant and the person preferring the first appeal are two different persons - CIC: Appeal dismissed
1. Shri A Ranjankutty, Advocate submitted his RTI application dated 19 November 2010 before the CPIO IRDA Hyderabad to seek information pertaining to LIC policy in the name of Shri R Dineshbabu and sought to have information pertaining to action taken on his letters dated 17 July 2010 and 2 September 2010. Appellant also submitted that the third party belonged to the below poverty line segment.
2. Vide CPIO order dated 7 December 2010, appellant was informed that the Grievance Cell of Consumer Affairs Department does not entertain complaints written by Advocates or agents or any third parties on behalf of policyholders.
3. Subsequently, Shri Dineshbabu preferred appeal dated 21 December 2010 (copy not on file) before the first appellate authority.
4. Matter was disposed of vide FAA order dated 20 January 2011 in which he stated that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, the applicant of the RTI application and the person preferring the first appeal should be one and the same person and not two different persons as in the present case. On these grounds, the appeal was dismissed.
5. Shri Dineshbabu filed second appeal before the Commission.
6. Matter was heard today via videoconferencing from Hyderabad where CPIO as above was present. Appellant did not appear.
7. After hearing the averments of the CPIO and on perusing the facts on record, Commission dismisses appeal on the grounds that the RTI application was preferred by Shri A Ranjankutty and the second appeal has been preferred by another person by the name of Shri R Dineshbabu.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Citation: Shri R.Dinesh Babu v. IRDA in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000381