LIC: On the basis of a complaint, the policy amount was paid along with interest to appellant - Copy of the explanation submitted by the agent was denied claiming it to be personal information related to the agency - CIC upheld the denial of information

ORDER

1. The appellant, Ms. Anshika Singhal, submitted RTI application dated 22.12.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, LIC of India, Meerut sought copy of explanation given by LIC Agent, Mr. S. K. Dhingra (Broker Code 49325K) to branch office with reference to her complaint dated 8.8.2014.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.01.2015 denied information by claiming exemption of 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; & 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. 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. 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. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority (FAA) on8.02.2015. The FAA vide order dated 17.03.2015 held that the grievance of appellant had been redressed. The matter of departmental proceedings against the agent and explanation submitted by him could not be provided in view of 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. 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. 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. and 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; being third party information and held by the respondent authority in fiduciary confidence.

3. Thereafter, dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant approached the Commission on 06.04.2015 on the grounds of wrongful denial of information stating that when a citizen seeks information about her own case, there is no intrusion in anyone’s privacy and therefore she could not be treated as third party.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that she took a health plus policy of LIC. She came to know that her policy was surrendered without her knowledge on the basis of her forged signatures on the policy and the amount was used for taking two new policies by her mother-in-law, Ms Manju Singhal. Therefore, she complained to LIC and got an FIR registered at Meerut. With reference to her complaint, the LIC had informed her that they had sought the explanation of Shri S.K. Dhingra, the agent concerned and she wanted a copy of this explanation of Shri S.K. Dhingra which had been denied to her. She stated that the information sought related to her and therefore, she was not a third party and had a right to get a copy of the explanation. The respondents stated that they had received the policy discharge vouchers ‘duly signed by the appellant’ through the agent. On the basis of a complaint, they had paid the amount along with interest to the appellant and redressed her grievance. The LIC had accepted the policy through the agent as the same agent worked for the family. They could not provide the copy of the explanation submitted by the agent as this happened to be personal information related to the agency and could not be given to anybody else.

5. The action taken by the LIC to call for the explanation of the agent and the explanation received from him is a matter between the employee and the employer and has been appropriately denied u/s 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. 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. 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. The Apex Court has also decided in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2011(@ CC 14781/ 2012) that “…copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. …..”

6. In view of the above, the Commission upholds the position taken by the respondents that the copy of explanation cannot be provided to the appellant but the Commission directs the CPIO to intimate the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding against the agent within 15 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ms Anshika Singhal v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001092