Details of premium paid & loans taken against a policy - Appellant: only one loan was taken but PIO has informed that two loans have been secured - PIO: the amount of the second loan has been restored - CIC: compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for delay

Details of premium paid & Loans taken against the policy was sought - Appellant: only one loan was taken against the LIC policy but PIO has informed him that two loans have been secured - PIO: the amount of the second loan has been restored - CIC: the LIC took over a year to communicate the restoration of a loan amount, compensation of Rs. 2,000/- awarded to the appellant, inform in writing that the interest on his loan is due up to 27.6.2009 only

ORDER

Facts:

1. The appellant Shri Chagnati Rami has submitted RTI application dated 21 January 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer, (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kothagudem seeking information relating to his LIC Policy No.682221454 through total of 02 point:

i. Details of premium paid by me against my LIC Policy.

ii. Details of Loans taken from LIC against above Policy, along with supporting documents like copies of my loan application.

2. Vide CPIO order dated 21 February 2012, CPIO furnished all the requisite information. Information was provided after 31 days of the submission of RTI application.

3. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority(FAA) dated 13 March 2012 alleging that he has been supplied incomplete information as he has taken only one loan against his LIC policy but CPIO has informed him that two loans have been secured against his LIC policy and no supporting documents have been provided of the 2nd loan.

4. Vide FAA order dated 12 April 2012, the FAA held that the Kothaguden Branch Office has been instructed to probe thoroughly in the matter alleged by the appellant in his First Appeal.

5. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that he has not received complete and satisfactory information.

6. The appellant had sought information initially from the CPIO on the following points:1) The details of premium paid by him against his LIC policy. 2) Details of loan taken from the LIC against his policy along with the supporting documents.

7. He filed an appeal as he was not satisfied with the information given to him as he had been informed that he had taken two loans from his policy whereas he had taken only one loan of Rs. 5,000/on 22.4.2008 vide his appeal dated 13.3.2012.

8. The appellant was informed by the First Appellate Authority vide his letter dated 12.4.2012 that they could not trace the loan application and the branch office at Kothagudem has been instructed to probe into the matter. The matter could not be sorted out by the LIC, therefore the appellant filed an second appeal in 19th December 2012 before the Commission.

9. The matter was heard today. During the course of hearing the representative of the appellant informed that recently in the beginning of January 2014, the appellant was informed by the public authority that the amount of the second loan alleged to have been taken by him has been restored after the completion of the probe followed by disciplinary action against the erring officials.

10. The representative of the appellant also mentioned that the appellant is highly dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to him by the LIC as the settlement of the loan wrongly showed against his policy took 3 years to be sorted out, therefore he suffered a lot of harassment and mental agony. The CPIO was asked to clarify the position regarding this inordinate delay in restoring the amount, the informed that the case had initially come to his notice in January 2012 by way of an application from the applicant and the loan amount was settled and restored in September 2012 after completing the disciplinary action against the erring officials. The Commission finds it extremely surprising that after settling the amount and restoring it to the appellant, the LIC took over a year to communicate the restoration of a loan amount wrongly shown against the appellant’s policy to him. This information should have been communicated to the appellant in writing in the month of September, 2012 itself. If action had been taken at that time there would have been no cause of grievance to the appellant. The appellant has indeed suffered unnecessarily and avoidably because of the callus attitude of the public authority. The CPIO agreed that in one and the only loan taken by the policy holder the interest will be charged till 27 June 2009 as the appellant had returned the amount of Rs. 5,000/taken as loan. For the second loan which was wrongly shown against the policy of the appellant and for which the appellant suffered undue harassment, negligent attitude of the public authority, the Commission orders that the appellant be compensated by an amount of Rs.2,000/as per section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the Act.

Decision notice

11. The Commission directs the CPIO to inform the appellant in writing that the interest on his loan is due up to 27.6.2009 only. The above information is to be provided within one week of the receipt of the order. 12. The Commission further orders that the appellant be compensated by an mount of Rs. 2,000/as per section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act, 2005 for the agony suffered by him. This may be done within two weeks of the receipt of the order.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Chagnati Ramu v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000003/MP