Detailed calculation of Surrender Value under the policies, etc - The second appeal has been filed by appellant’s father - CIC advised the respondents to look into the grievance of the appellant and respond in 15 days; order not to be used as a precedent

ORDER

1. The appellant, Shri P C K Shah, submitted RTI application dated August 22, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai seeking information regarding surrender value & bonus under his policy numbers 385469207 and 385469208 etc.

2. Vide reply dated September 23, 2013, the CPIO furnished the desired information to the appellant. Not satisfied with the decision of CPIO, the appellant preferred appeal dated October 18, 2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA) seeking information through seven points regarding detailed calculation of Surrender Value under the policies, clarification in respect of Cash value of bonus, reduction in surrender value, etc. Vide order dated October 28, 2013, held that questions regarding calculation or reduction in surrender value and cash value of bonus required scrutiny, comparison, interpretation, etc. which did not fall under the scope of information in terms of section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative submitted that the respondents had not provided the desired information to him. He stated that the first appellate authority had also failed to provide a satisfactory reply to him. The respondents submitted that the bonus when declared under a policy gets accrued and was payable only on the date of maturity or on death (if earlier) in full and if the policy was surrendered any time before maturity, then the reduced bonus as per the surrender value of the policy was payable. They stated that the cash value of the bonus accrued under the policies of the appellant was paid to him on surrender of both policies. The respondents submitted that both the CPIO and appellate authority had given the correct position / reply to the appellant and that the appellant had a grievance. The appellant reiterated that there was difference in the calculation arrived at by him and the one provided by the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

5. It was noted that the RTI application and the first appeal was filed by Shri Ajeet Shah but the second appeal has been filed by his father Shri P C K Shah. Shri Ajeet Shah is advised to ensure that he files the appeals himself in his RTI applications, in future. The Commission has already heard this case, therefore, a decision is being given. This will, however, not be cited as a precedent in such matters

6. The Commission finds that the respondents had not provided a point wise and reasoned reply to the appellant therefore, advices the respondents to look into the complaint/grievance of the appellant and respond within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Ajeet Shah v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000595