Information relating to policy purchased by her late husband & payment of maturity amount after his death - PIO: per their records, the policy holder is unmarried & mother is the nominee - CIC: denial us 8(1)(j) as third party information upheld
1. The appellant, Ms Gulistan, submitted RTI application dated 13 September 2012, before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dehradun; seeking information relating to policy purchased by her late husband, Shri Samir Ahmad and payment of maturity amount after his death through total of 8 points.
2. Vide order dated 08 October 2012, CPIO denied the information to the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not mentioned the policy no. in her application which was necessary to get the details of the policy. The appellant preferred appeal dated 16 October 2012, to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), in which she had mentioned the policy no. as 272869735 and requested the appellate authority not to make payment to anyone else other than her, as one case is pending in the local court in this regard. Vide order dated 05November 2012, the FAA held that the appellant could not be provided the information as she had not mentioned the reasons for her dissatisfaction with the CPIO reply with reference to the RTI request, instead, she had mentioned other grounds in her appeal, therefore, her appeal had been dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Ms Gulistan, was represented by Shri Md. Yusuf who made submissions from Saharanpur. The respondent, Ms Upasana Chandok, CPIO made submissions from Dehradun.
5. The appellant submitted that the information sought is regarding appellant’s husband’s policy and she had provided the policy number also in her appeal to the First Appellate Authority but she had not been provided the information.
6. The respondents submitted that as per their records, Shri Samir Ahmad the policy holder, is unmarried and the nominee is the mother of the policy holder. Hence, the information sought is third party information and may not be disclosed as per Section8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, a case has been filed by the appellant before the Civil Judge, District Court, Saharanpur which is still pending.
7. The Commission, after hearing the respondents, upholds the CPIO’s order as the disclosure of information 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. of the RTI Act, 2005 and also as the matter is subjudice. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
Citation: Ms Gulistan v. LIC of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000441/MP