Applicant was legally wedded wife of deceased insurance policy holder & pleaded that the policy amount was paid to her mother in law without informing her - PIO: payments made as per valid nomination - CIC: no larger public interest; appeal rejected

Information regarding a Policy was denied u/s 11, 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; &(j) - applicant was a legally wedded wife of deceased policy holder & pleaded that the amount under these policies was paid to her mother in law without informing her – PIO: payments have been made as per valid nominations in the policies – CIC: no larger public interest established, appeal rejected

ORDER

Facts:
1. The appellant, Ms. Pritija Parag Nimbalkar, has submitted the RTI application dated 18 December 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Pune; seeking information in relation to the Policy No. 954115409 & 950314885 through a total of 2 points.

2. Vide reply dated 07 January 2013, the CPIO replied that the nominee of the concerned policy had also not given her consent for providing the information, thus the said information cannot be given as per section 11 and section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & 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. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 5 February 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 28 March 2012, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and also clarified the same.

3. 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. Ms. Pritija Parag Nimbalkar, the appellant was present along with Shri Surendra R. Dattar. The respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India, was represented by Shri Vilas G. Mujumdar, Manager (Claims) on behalf of FAA and Shri D.D. Kulkarni, CPIO from Pune.

 5. The appellant submitted that she had requested for information about three policies held by late Shri Parag S. Nimbalkar. She had been provided information with respect to one of the policies but information had been refused to her with respect to other two policies. It was added that though the applicant is a legally wedded wife of late Shri Parag S. Nimbalkar the LIC, without informing her, paid all the amount under these policies to Shri Nimbalkar’s mother, Smt. Vijaya S. Nimbalkar. Therefore, she had prayed that the reasons assigned for are confusing.

6. The respondents submitted that the payments have been made to Smt Vijaya S. Nimbalkar, late Shri Parag S. Nimbalkar’s mother as per valid nominations in the policies in question. Smt Vijaya S. Nimbalkar has had also not agreed to provide the information to the appellant as per section 11 of the RTI Act. In addition, no larger public interest had been established by the appellant.

Decision Notice

7. In view of the above, the decision of the CPIO is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ms. Pritija Parag Nimbalkar v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000705/MP