Information regarding the number of the claims case received, settled, pending and rejected by United India Insurance Co. Ltd was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - PIO: it includes personal information of the insurance policy holders - CIC: appeal dismissed
1. The appellant, Shri Vimlesh Kumar Yadav, submitted RTI application dated 29 July 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow; seeking information regarding personal accident insurance scheme policies issued by the respondent company to the businessmen etc., through a total of 3 points.
2. Vide replies dated 14 August 2013, CPIO furnished pointwise information to the appellant. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply on point no. 3, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 20 August 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had not been provided complete information on the said point by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 27 August 2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and also held that remaining requested information was related to third party and personal in nature and also no public interest was involved, therefore he was not able to furnish the same.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant had sought information regarding the number of the claims case received, settled, pending and rejected by the public authority. The information was also required regarding the details of the pending cases.
5. The respondents submitted that complete information had been provided to the appellant. However, the details of the pending cases included the personal information of the insurance policy holders, the disclosure of which may encroach upon their privacy, attracting 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. No larger public interest had been established by the appellant for the disclosure of information.
6. The Commission accepts the CPIO’s submissions and dismisses the appeal.
Citation: Shri Vimlesh Kumar Yadav v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001669/MP