Information regarding the persons who participated in the training conducted by LIC & agents whose agency had been renewed was sought - CIC: disclosure of the names & addresses of agents of LIC would harm its competitive position; exempt u/s 8(1)(d)

ORDER

1. The appellant, Smt. Sajitha Anilkumar, submitted RTI application dated 15 April 2013 before the Chief Information Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ranni; seeking information regarding the persons who participated in the training conducted by LIC, Ranni Branch and LIC agents whose agency had been renewed during the period of March, April & May 2009 etc., through a total of 2 points.

2. Vide reply dated 14 May 2013, CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 29 May 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that she had been wrongly denied the information sought by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 7 June 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.

3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that they sought to know about the agents training on the following two queries: (1) CIC/DS/A/2013/002122/MP 1 The particulars of persons including the name and address who participated in the training programme conducted by LIC of India, Ranni Branch from March, April, May 2009 and copy of attendance sheet of the same; and (2) The details of LIC agents who were renewed their license during the period under LIC of India, Ranni Branch, which had been denied under the provisions of Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act. The respondent CPIO stated that if the list concerning the names of agents is provided to third party, it will jeopardize the competitive position of the LIC. The agents so appointed by the LIC of India can work for only one Life Insurance Company and that they would not like to share the agents in whom they have invested in terms of licensing.

5. Having heard the submissions of both the parties, the Commission is of the view that providing the names and addresses of agents appointed by the LIC of India cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of LIC of India. The respondents will, however, provide the number of agents who attended the training and the number of agents whose licence was renewed in March, and April and May during 2009 within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Smt. Sajitha Anilkumar v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002122/MP