CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000299
Dated, the 31st July, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Shambhu Bhat D
Respondents : Oriental Insurance Company Limited
This matter was heard on 01.07.2009 pursuant to Commission’s
notice dated 26.05.2009. Appellant was present through his rep.,
Shri V.N.Raghupathy, while the respondents were represented by the
CPIO, Shri P.K. Jha, DGM.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 03.04.2008 comprised the
following request for information:-
“As reported in Udayavani daily dated 01/04/08 I came to know
that your company has issued Group Family Health Insurance
Policy through Sampoorna Suraksha Health Insurance Scheme to
Shree Kshethra Dharmasthala Rural Development Project
(Agents) to over 60,000 families.
1. I request you to provide me a copy of the Agreement or
Memorandum of Understanding that you have entered into
with Shree Kshetra Dharmasthala Rural Development
Programme ⎯ Sampoorna Suraksha Health Insurance Project.
2. I also request you to provide me a copy of the policy with
terms and conditions mentioned therein, including the names
of the beneficiaries (insured), their age, sex, address and
premium amount collected against each insured person or
group of persons.”
3. The CPIO, through his communication dated 13.05.2008, informed
appellant that the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd ⎯ the respondents
⎯ were a Public Insurance Company transacting business on commercial
principles. Disclosing the requested information would violate the
client confidentiality, which the public authority was expected to
safeguard. Information was, therefore, declined by the CPIO citing
Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Appellate Authority,
through his order dated 19.01.2009, upheld CPIO’s decision.
AT-31072009-34.doc
Page 1 of 3
4. Appellant, in his second-appeal, has questioned the decision of
the Appellate Authority on the ground that there was public interest in
the disclosure of the above information. The Oriental Insurance
Company had issued health policies to a huge number of families
identified by the third-party, Shree Kshetra Dharmasthala Rural
Development Programme, which collected certain fee in the form of
premium from the insured persons. It is the appellant’s contention that
the information requested by him was vital in order to verify whether
the third-party, Shree Kshetra Dharmasthala Rural Development
Programme charged excessive amount as fee / premium from the
insured. According to appellant, “the Oriental Insurance Company has
allowed the agent to charge a higher premium to the beneficiaries and
collecting less than that per person from the agent”. He feels that
there was a deal between the agent and the company in the form of the
Memorandum of Understanding in order to defraud the public. It is the
appellant’s contention that being a matter of public interest, the above
requested information does not attract exemptions under Section
8(1)(d) or Section 8(1)(e) of the Act.
Decision:
5. I find that appellant has resorted to surmises and conjectures in
order to make out a case for disclosure of the requested information in
public interest. There is not an iota of verifiable evidence about
whether there was any fraud and collusive action by the service
provider and the third-party in collecting more than the required
premium from the insured as alleged by the appellant. No decision
about collusion between the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and Shree
Kshetra Dharmasthala Rural Development Programme can be made on
the basis of the submission which appellant has made.
6. Respondents have argued that this kind of request smacks of an
attempt to know the details of agreement between the third-party and
the insurance company in order to undercut both and to take away their
business to their rivals. Public interest is only a veil to cover the crass
commercialism in this form of RTI-petitions.
7. The commercial entities such as the Oriental Insurance Company
is entitled to protect its commercial interests especially relating to the
agreements it enters into to promote its objectives, with third-parties.
Any disclosure of this variety of information including details of the
premiums / fee could be detrimental to the commercial interest and
competitive interest of the public authority and possibly also of the
AT-31072009-34.doc
Page 2 of 3
third-party. This doubtless attracts Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and
cannot be authorized to be disclosed.
8. Appeal fails. Closed.
9. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-31072009-34.doc
Page 3 of 3