Central Information Commission
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000740
Appellant /Complainant : Shri Prakash Sidhwani, New Delhi
Public Authority : Life Insurance Corpn. Of India, N.Delhi
(Sh. S.K. Varshney, Mgr.(CRM)/CPIO
and
Shri G.P. Pandey, Mgr.(Legal)
Date of Hearing : 29/11/2010
Date of Decision : 29/11/2010
Facts
:
1. The applicant preferred RTI application dated 14 September 2009
before the CPIO, Life Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi, seeking
information through 10 points pertaining to death claim preferred under
policy number 114529122 – enclosed herewith as Annexure A.
2. The CPIO vide his order of 28 October 2009 provided point wise
information which failed to satisfy the applicant who preferred first appeal
received by respondent on 17 November 2009. The matter was
adjudicated upon by first appellate authority vide his order of 15 December
2009 through which he upheld the order of the CPIO.
3. Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the above orders, the
applicant preferred second appeal before the Commission. The matter was
heard today. Both parties were present as above and made their
submissions.
4. Appellant stated that information provided to him was vague and
incomplete and an attempt had been made by the respondent to obstruct
the disclosure of information in complete and flagrant violation of the RTI
Act. Appellant presented before the Commission the page having notings
of the officials of the Corporation which was furnished by the CPIO as
“information” provided against Point2 to the applicant in support of his
averments. Appellant also drew the attention of the Commission to
information provided by CPIO against Point.3 of his RTI request to indicate
that information provided was incomplete and misleading.
5. Responded agreed that the photocopy of the notings provided to
the appellant were illegible and offered to provide a legible copy of to the
Appellant. Commission observed that the paper could simply not be read
and providing of such a photocopy tantamounted to denial of information.
6. Appellant also stated he was not satisfied with information provided
under Point.8 of his RTI application.
Decision
7. The Commission observes at the outset that the respondent has
treated this sensitive case in a most casual manner. By providing
photocopy of notings which are illegible he has obstructed disclosure of
information in a manner that appears deliberate. No effort was made by
him subsequently to provide a legible copy of the notings to the appellant.
CPIO has not cared to bring a clear copy of the said page with him at the
hearing and presented a completely illegible copy to the Commission at
the hearing.
8. After hearing both sides Commission is inclined to conclude that
there has been lack of transparency on the part of the respondent.
Respondent is directed to provide a clear copy of the notings as sought
vide para two of his application to the appellant.
9. With reference to point three Commission observes that as per
information provided by the CPIO, the first premium receipt was issued
to the agent. Respondent is directed to provide opportunity of inspection of
the document based on which this information has been provided to the
appellant.
10. Respondent is also directed to provide full and complete information
as sought under Point.8 to the appellant.
11. Appellant to be provided opportunity of inspection of all documents,
files, ledgers pertaining to the above mentioned policy and holding record
of the receipt of cheque and proposal by the Corporation.
12. Above information to be provided within one week of receipt of the
order.
13. Commission takes a serious view of the obstructionist approach of
the CPIO in disclosure of information. Not only has he provided a illegible
copies of documents sought by the appellant but has not made any effort
to remedy the situation for the past one year during which period the
appellant has been making efforts to obtain information from the
respondent. The case is all the more serious as it pertains to the
extinguishing of a young life with the grieving parents running from pillar to
post to obtain information from an indifferent and insensitive respondent.
Even at the hearing the CPIO did not care to remedy the situation by
bringing with him clear copies of the information sought by the appellant.
14. Under the powers conferred on the Commission under section 19
(8) (c) and section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, notice is issued to the CPIO to
show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not having
carried out his responsibilities as mandated under the RTI Act. Opportunity
of personal hearing is provided to him since the burden of proving that he
has acted reasonably and diligently rests squarely with him. He is
directed to present himself before the Commission on 12.1.2011 at
11.00 AM alongwith papers to support his averments.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Tel No. 01126105027
Copy to:
1. Shri Prakash Sidhwani
E342, Ramesh Nagar Double Storey,
Opp – NDPL Office,
New Delhi110015
2. Shri S.K. Varshney,
Manager(CRM)/CPIO
Life Insurance Corpn. Of India,
Divisional Office1,
25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi110001
3. Shri G.P. Pandey
Manager(Legal)/AA
Life Insurance Corpn. Of India,
Divisional Office1,
25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi110001
Leave a Reply