Information regarding the nominee mentioned in her husband’s LIC policy was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Appellant: a divorce suit is pending in Court between her & her husband - CIC: denial of third party information upheld as no larger public has been establish
6 Jun, 2014Facts:
1. The appellant, Ms. Sudha Saini, submitted RTI application dated 20 December 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ajmer; seeking information regarding the nominee mentioned in her husband’s policy nos. 192648335, 192810866 & 192810880.
2. Vide reply dated 24 January 2013, CPIO denied the information to the appellant u/s 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. 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. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 4 February 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA), alleging that he had not been provided correct information. Vide order dated 25 March 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission requesting that she should be provided correct information as there was divorce suit pending in the Court between the appellant and her husband, Shri Ved Prakash Saini.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Ms. Sudha Saini, was not present at the hearing and the respondent, Shri Surya Bhan, CPIO. Manager (CRM) and Shri R.P. Tak, AO, participated in the hearing from Ajmer.
5. The appellant in the second appeal had sought policy details w.r.t. to her husband Shri Ved Prakash Saini, Policy holder.
6. The CPIO submitted that the information sought for cannot be provided as the third party i.e., as Shri Ved Prakash Saini has denied the disclosure of the information under the RTI Act, 2005. Also, the appellant is not the nominee in the said three policies.
Decision Notice
7. The Commission accepts the CPIO’s submission that the information sought may not be provided as it is third party information and attracts 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. 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. Also no larger public has been established by the RTI applicant, in the disclosure of the information. Hence the present appeal is dismissed and the case is closed.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms. Sudha Saini v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000818/MP