CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01612
Dated, the 18th May, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Sujit Kumar Srivastava
Respondents : New India Assurance Company Limited
This matter came up for hearing on 23.04.2009. Both parties
were present.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 05.09.2008 contained the
following requests for information:-
3. This information was declined to the appellant citing commercial
confidence of the public authority under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act.
Besides, the respondents also cited Section 8(1)(j) of the Act to decline
to disclose the information.
4. Appellant, in his second-appeal, has stated that the information
he requested pertains to a Mediclaim policy he had taken in the name
of his parents. Such information can scarcely be described as
‘commercial confidence’ of the public authority or ‘personal’ to the
third-party. It is his argument that the public authority was declining to
disclose the information to the appellant even when they knew fully
well that appellant was seeking this information relating to his parents.
AT-18052009-21.doc
Page 1 of 3
5. Respondents pointed out during the hearing that New India
Assurance Company Ltd as a service-provider had issued a group
insurance mediclaim policy to a group of officers and employees of the
LIC of India. They (Respondents) had no way of finding out whether
Mr.V.S.Srivastava was a member of the said group.
6. It is somewhat surprising that New India Assurance Company Ltd
despite being the service-provider for the health insurance policy to the
group of employees of the LIC of India, does not have a record about
who all comprised the group.
7. It is their argument nevertheless that they had issued the policy
to a group of employees of LIC of India and not to its individual
members.
8. A plea that the service-providers will not share an insurance-
related information with a member of a group of policyholders is an
untenable argument. Even if the contract is between the service-
provider and the group of policyholders, an individual member of that
group has every right to seek insurance-related information about
himself or his own medical claim. In this particular case, it is an
admitted fact that the matter relates to information about the medical
claim for the treatment of one, Mr.V.S. Srivastava, his wife, Mrs.Raj
Kumari Srivastava, who happen to be the father and the mother of the
present appellant. Respondents have argued that even if the matter
relates to his parents, appellant had no right to seek insurance-related
information of the former as within the meaning of the RTI act
appellant is only an outsider and his parents are the third-parties to the
RTI-proceeding.
9. This argument of the respondents, though technically correct, is
hollow in substance. It was open to them to consult the so-called
third-parties about disclosure of information, which they believed
pertained exclusively to those third-parties and even that parties’ son
⎯ the present appellant ⎯ have had no right to access this information
without their consent. Given the fact that the third-parties are none
other than the parents of the appellant, it was more likely than not that
they would have given their consent to the disclosure of information.
10. I would have expected the respondents to come forward with
disclosure of the requested information to the appellant recognizing his
claim as the son of Mr. and Mrs.Srivastava. Having not done so on
AT-18052009-21.doc
Page 2 of 3
technical grounds of the parents being third-parties to an information
requested by their own son, respondents could at least have initiated
proceedings under Section 11(1) of the Act to obtain the consent of the
third-parties. Their inability to do so remains unexplained.
11. Respondents cannot claim the information to be both relating to a
third-party and the respondents’ own commercial confidence. If the
information is exclusively of the third-party, there is very little chance
that it will also be commercially critical to the respondents. It is not
for the respondents again to decide whether the information is personal
to the third-party without even consulting that third-party.
12. In view of the above, the following directives are issued:-
(i) Respondents are directed to ascertain whether
Mr.S.K.Srivastava was a member of the group of LIC
employees in whose name the Mediclaim policy was taken
out.
(ii) Respondents will then start proceedings under Section 11(1)
of the RTI Act to consult the third-party about disclosure of
information.
(iii) If the third-party expresses its concurrence to the
disclosure of information to the appellant, respondents
shall take appropriate action under the RTI Act to process
the information.
(iv) This will be finalized within two weeks of the receipt of this
order by the respondents.
13. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
14. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-18052009-21.doc
Page 3 of 3