Note sheet for registration of a company as a general insurance company was denied by IRDA u/s 8(1)(d) stating it consisted of company’s action plan, strategies, risk management & contingencies and reinsurance arrangements etc. - CIC: appeal dismissed
Note sheet for registration of a company as a general insurance company for business purpose was denied by IRDA u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; stating it consisted of company’s action plan, strategies, risk management & contingencies and reinsurance arrangements etc. the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the insurer company - CIC: appeal dismissed
1. The complainant, Shri Nirmal Kumar submitted RTI application dated 18.03.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA), Hyderabad, seeking relevant documents and note-sheet of permission and approval by IRDA for appointment of Executive Chairman Shri O.N. Singh from ‘Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.; and relevant documents relating to extension period of Executive Chairman Shri O.N. Singh; note sheet, approval for registration of Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. as a general insurance company in India for general insurance business, through three points.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.04.2014 sent point-wise reply to the complainant and provided information on points 1, 2 and 3. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 22.4.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 30.5.2014 directed the CPIO to provide copy of note sheet in response to point 1, 2 and 3.
3. Thereafter the complainant (hereinafter called the appellant) filed the instant appeal u/s 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act, which was inadvertently registered as complaint. The Commission treats the instant complaint as second appeal.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that inspite of the directions of the FAA the CPIO had not provided copy of note sheet in response to point 3. The respondents stated that in compliance with directions of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter dated 14.08.2014 provided copies of note sheet on point nos. 1 and 2. On point 3 the CPIO informed the appellant that disclosure of note sheet consisted of company’s action plan, projected product mix, strategies for meeting rural and social sector obligations and distribution model, risk management and contingencies and reinsurance arrangements were related to the company, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party. Further there was no larger public interest involved for the disclosure of the same, hence disclosure of which is exempt u/s 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act.
5. The Commission holds that the CPIO had replied to the complainant vide letter dated 22.4.2014 and in compliance with directions of the FAA, the CPIO provided copies of note sheets on point 1 and 2 vide letter dated 14.08.2014 and denied copies of note sheet on point 3 under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, as its disclosure would harm the competitive position of the insurer company. The Commission finds no reason to intervene in the matter and the decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Nirmal Kumar v. Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/C/2014/900278