CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01411
Dated, the 09th March, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Bhupendra V. Bhavsar
Respondents : Life Insurance Corporation of India
This second-appeal is related to appellant’s RTI-application dated
19.05.2008 replied to by the CPIO on 13.06.2008 and by the Appellate Authority
on 27.08.2008.
2. Appellant’s queries in his RTI-application related to certain clarification
regarding the responsibility for timely receipt of premium from the insured,
issuance of receipt by LIC to the policyholder and so on. Except item no.1, the
other queries are in the nature of interrogatories seeking explanations of the
respondents. Nevertheless replies were furnished to the appellant in terms of the
policy guidelines covering the issues he had raised in the RTI-application.
3. In his second-appeal petition, appellant has stated that respondents had
failed to provide to him documentary evidence which would show that necessary
formalities had been completed before the appellant’s Insurance Policy was
cancelled by the LIC of India.
4. Matter came up for hearing on 04.03.2009 in response to Commission’s
notice dated 27.01.2009. Appellant was absent when called, while CPIO
represented the respondents.
5. During the hearing, CPIO explained that appellant’s LIC policy was never
cancelled. Whenever the premium due on a policy is not paid within the
stipulated time and the grace period, the policy automatically lapses. That is
what happened in the present case. The use of the word ‘cancellation’ of the
Policy by the appellant was, therefore, not in order. The rules regarding lapsing
of Policy are part of the Policy Document handed over to policyholders.
6. It would appear that appellant has a dispute with the LIC about the status
of his Insurance Policy. CPIO has already provided to him the necessary rules
and guidelines regarding taking out, servicing and lapsing, etc. of such Policies.
I do not see what more can be given to the appellant beyond what the
respondents have already provided to him. They had intimated to him on
AT-09032009-03.doc
Page 1 of 2
13.06.2008 to pay Rs.4/- so that they could give to him the rules regarding how
Policies lapsed on account of non-payment of premium. Appellant never paid
the demanded fee and as such, that part of information could not be transmitted
to him by the CPIO.
7. On perusal of evidence in this matter, I find that respondents have
diligently and carefully replied to the queries of the appellant in spite of the fact
that these queries were interrogatories and not entirely within the scope of
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
8. Accordingly, I uphold the decision of the Appellate Authority. Appeal
disallowed.
9. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-09032009-03.doc
Page 2 of 2