{"id":242473,"date":"2010-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-12T07:45:11","modified_gmt":"2017-06-12T02:15:11","slug":"mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                    Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\n Room\u00a0No.296,\u00a0II\u00a0Floor,\u00a0B\u00a0Wing,\u00a0August\u00a0Kranti\u00a0Bhawan,\u00a0Bhikaji\u00a0Cama\u00a0Place,\u00a0New\u00a0\n                                Delhi\u00ad110066\n            Telefax:011\u00ad26180532\u00a0&amp;\u00a0011\u00ad26107254\u00a0website\u00adcic.gov.in\n\n\n                   \u00a0Appeal\u00a0\u00a0:\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/DS\/A\/2010\/000740\n\n\nAppellant\u00a0\/Complainant        :       Shri\u00a0Prakash\u00a0Sidhwani,\u00a0New\u00a0Delhi\u00a0\n\nPublic\u00a0Authority              :       \u00a0Life\u00a0Insurance\u00a0Corpn.\u00a0Of\u00a0India,\u00a0N.Delhi\n                                      (Sh.\u00a0S.K.\u00a0Varshney,\u00a0Mgr.(CRM)\/CPIO\u00a0\nand\n                                      Shri\u00a0G.P.\u00a0Pandey,\u00a0Mgr.(Legal)\n\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0Hearing\u00a0              :       \u00a029\/11\/2010\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0Decision              :       \u00a029\/11\/2010\u00a0\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n<p>:\u00ad\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>1.     The\u00a0applicant\u00a0preferred\u00a0RTI\u00a0application\u00a0dated\u00a014\u00a0September\u00a02009\u00a0<br \/>\nbefore\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO,\u00a0Life\u00a0Insurance\u00a0Corporation\u00a0of\u00a0India,\u00a0New\u00a0Delhi,\u00a0seeking\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\u00a0through\u00a010\u00a0points\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0death\u00a0claim\u00a0preferred\u00a0under\u00a0<br \/>\npolicy\u00a0number\u00a0114529122\u00a0&#8211;\u00a0enclosed\u00a0herewith\u00a0as\u00a0Annexure\u00a0A.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.     The\u00a0CPIO\u00a0vide\u00a0his\u00a0order\u00a0of\u00a028\u00a0October\u00a02009\u00a0provided\u00a0point\u00a0wise\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\u00a0which\u00a0failed\u00a0to\u00a0satisfy\u00a0the\u00a0applicant\u00a0who\u00a0preferred\u00a0first\u00a0appeal\u00a0<br \/>\nreceived \u00a0 by \u00a0 respondent \u00a0 on \u00a0 17 \u00a0 November \u00a0 2009. \u00a0 The \u00a0 matter \u00a0 was\u00a0<br \/>\nadjudicated\u00a0upon\u00a0by\u00a0first\u00a0appellate\u00a0authority\u00a0vide\u00a0his\u00a0order\u00a0of\u00a015\u00a0December\u00a0<br \/>\n2009\u00a0through\u00a0which\u00a0he\u00a0upheld\u00a0the\u00a0order\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.     Being\u00a0aggrieved\u00a0and\u00a0not\u00a0being\u00a0satisfied\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0orders,\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\napplicant\u00a0preferred\u00a0second\u00a0appeal\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission.\u00a0The\u00a0matter\u00a0was\u00a0<br \/>\nheard \u00a0 today. \u00a0 Both \u00a0 parties \u00a0 were \u00a0 present \u00a0 as \u00a0 above \u00a0 and \u00a0 made \u00a0 their\u00a0<br \/>\nsubmissions.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     Appellant\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0information\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0was\u00a0vague\u00a0and\u00a0<br \/>\nincomplete\u00a0and\u00a0an\u00a0attempt\u00a0had\u00a0been\u00a0made\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0respondent\u00a0to\u00a0obstruct\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0in\u00a0complete\u00a0and\u00a0flagrant\u00a0violation\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0<br \/>\n Act.\u00a0Appellant\u00a0presented\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0the\u00a0page\u00a0having\u00a0notings\u00a0<br \/>\nof\u00a0the\u00a0officials\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Corporation\u00a0which\u00a0was\u00a0furnished\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0as\u00a0<br \/>\n&#8220;information&#8221;\u00a0provided\u00a0against\u00a0 \u00a0Point\u00ad2\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0applicant\u00a0in\u00a0support\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0<br \/>\naverments. \u00a0 Appellant \u00a0 also \u00a0 drew \u00a0 the \u00a0 attention \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Commission \u00a0 to\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\u00a0provided\u00a0by\u00a0CPIO\u00a0against\u00a0Point.3\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00a0request\u00a0to\u00a0indicate\u00a0<br \/>\nthat\u00a0information\u00a0provided\u00a0was\u00a0incomplete\u00a0and\u00a0misleading.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.      Responded\u00a0agreed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0photocopy\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0notings\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0appellant\u00a0were\u00a0illegible\u00a0and\u00a0offered\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0a\u00a0legible\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nAppellant.\u00a0Commission\u00a0observed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0paper\u00a0could\u00a0simply\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0read\u00a0<br \/>\nand\u00a0providing\u00a0of\u00a0such\u00a0a\u00a0photocopy\u00a0tantamounted\u00a0to\u00a0denial\u00a0of\u00a0information.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.      Appellant\u00a0also\u00a0stated\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0satisfied\u00a0with\u00a0information\u00a0provided\u00a0<br \/>\nunder\u00a0Point.8\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00a0application.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                      Decision<\/p>\n<p>7.      The\u00a0Commission\u00a0observes\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0outset\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0respondent\u00a0has\u00a0<br \/>\ntreated \u00a0 this \u00a0 sensitive \u00a0 case \u00a0 in \u00a0 a \u00a0 most \u00a0 casual \u00a0 manner. \u00a0 By \u00a0 providing\u00a0<br \/>\nphotocopy\u00a0of\u00a0notings\u00a0which\u00a0are\u00a0illegible\u00a0he\u00a0has\u00a0obstructed\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0manner\u00a0that\u00a0appears\u00a0deliberate.\u00a0No\u00a0effort\u00a0was\u00a0made\u00a0by\u00a0<br \/>\nhim\u00a0subsequently\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0a\u00a0legible\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0notings\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0appellant.\u00a0<br \/>\nCPIO\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0cared\u00a0to\u00a0bring\u00a0\u00a0a\u00a0clear\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0page\u00a0with\u00a0him\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nhearing\u00a0and\u00a0presented\u00a0a\u00a0completely\u00a0illegible\u00a0copy\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0at\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.      After\u00a0hearing\u00a0both\u00a0sides\u00a0Commission\u00a0is\u00a0inclined\u00a0to\u00a0conclude\u00a0that\u00a0<br \/>\nthere \u00a0 has \u00a0 been \u00a0 lack \u00a0 of \u00a0 transparency \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 part \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 respondent.\u00a0<br \/>\nRespondent\u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0a\u00a0clear\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0notings\u00a0as\u00a0sought\u00a0<br \/>\nvide\u00a0para\u00a0two\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0application\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.      With \u00a0 reference \u00a0 to \u00a0 point \u00a0 three \u00a0 Commission \u00a0 observes\u00a0 that \u00a0 as \u00a0 per\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0provided\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO,\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0first\u00a0premium\u00a0receipt\u00a0was\u00a0issued\u00a0<br \/>\nto\u00a0the\u00a0agent.\u00a0Respondent\u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0opportunity\u00a0of\u00a0inspection\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0document\u00a0based\u00a0on\u00a0which\u00a0this\u00a0information\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10.      Respondent\u00a0is\u00a0also\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0full\u00a0and\u00a0complete\u00a0information\u00a0<br \/>\nas\u00a0sought\u00a0under\u00a0Point.8\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.      Appellant\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0opportunity\u00a0of\u00a0inspection\u00a0of\u00a0all\u00a0documents,\u00a0<br \/>\nfiles,\u00a0ledgers\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0mentioned\u00a0policy\u00a0and\u00a0holding\u00a0\u00a0record\u00a0<br \/>\nof\u00a0the\u00a0receipt\u00a0of\u00a0cheque\u00a0and\u00a0proposal\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.      Above\u00a0information\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0within\u00a0one\u00a0week\u00a0of\u00a0receipt\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.      Commission\u00a0takes\u00a0a\u00a0serious\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0obstructionist\u00a0approach\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0CPIO\u00a0in\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0information.\u00a0Not\u00a0only\u00a0has\u00a0he\u00a0provided\u00a0a\u00a0illegible\u00a0<br \/>\ncopies\u00a0of\u00a0documents\u00a0sought\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0appellant\u00a0but\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0made\u00a0any\u00a0effort\u00a0<br \/>\nto \u00a0 remedy\u00a0 the \u00a0 situation \u00a0 for \u00a0 the \u00a0 past \u00a0 one \u00a0 year\u00a0 during \u00a0 which\u00a0 period \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nappellant \u00a0 has \u00a0 been \u00a0 making \u00a0 efforts \u00a0 to \u00a0 obtain \u00a0 information \u00a0 from \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nrespondent. \u00a0 The \u00a0 case \u00a0 is \u00a0 all \u00a0 the \u00a0 more \u00a0 serious \u00a0 as \u00a0 it \u00a0 pertains \u00a0 to \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nextinguishing\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0young\u00a0life\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0grieving\u00a0parents\u00a0running\u00a0from\u00a0pillar\u00a0to\u00a0<br \/>\npost\u00a0to\u00a0obtain\u00a0information\u00a0from\u00a0an\u00a0indifferent\u00a0and\u00a0insensitive\u00a0respondent.\u00a0<br \/>\nEven\u00a0 at\u00a0 the\u00a0hearing\u00a0 the\u00a0 CPIO\u00a0did\u00a0not\u00a0 care\u00a0 to\u00a0remedy\u00a0 the\u00a0situation\u00a0 by\u00a0<br \/>\nbringing\u00a0with\u00a0him\u00a0clear\u00a0copies\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0sought\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.      Under\u00a0the\u00a0powers\u00a0conferred\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0under\u00a0section\u00a019\u00a0<br \/>\n(8)\u00a0(c)\u00a0and\u00a0section\u00a020\u00a0(1)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act,\u00a0\u00a0notice\u00a0is\u00a0issued\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0to\u00a0<br \/>\nshow\u00a0cause\u00a0why\u00a0penalty\u00a0should\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0imposed\u00a0upon\u00a0him\u00a0for\u00a0not\u00a0having\u00a0<br \/>\ncarried\u00a0out\u00a0his\u00a0responsibilities\u00a0as\u00a0mandated\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act.\u00a0Opportunity\u00a0<br \/>\nof\u00a0personal\u00a0hearing\u00a0is\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0since\u00a0the\u00a0burden\u00a0of\u00a0proving\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0<br \/>\nhas \u00a0 acted \u00a0 reasonably \u00a0 and \u00a0 diligently \u00a0 rests \u00a0 squarely \u00a0 with \u00a0 him. \u00a0He \u00a0 is\u00a0<br \/>\ndirected\u00a0to\u00a0present\u00a0himself\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0on\u00a012.1.2011\u00a0at\u00a0<br \/>\n11.00\u00a0AM\u00a0alongwith\u00a0papers\u00a0to\u00a0support\u00a0his\u00a0averments.\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>                                                             (Smt.\u00a0Deepak\u00a0Sandhu)<br \/>\n                                                    Information\u00a0Commissioner\u00a0(DS)<br \/>\nAuthenticated\u00a0true\u00a0copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>(T.\u00a0K.\u00a0Mohapatra)<br \/>\n Under\u00a0Secretary\u00a0&amp;\u00a0Dy.\u00a0Registrar<br \/>\nTel\u00a0No.\u00a0011\u00ad26105027<\/p>\n<p>Copy\u00a0to:\u00ad<\/p>\n<p>1.    Shri\u00a0Prakash\u00a0Sidhwani<br \/>\n      E\u00ad342,\u00a0Ramesh\u00a0Nagar\u00a0Double\u00a0Storey,\u00a0<br \/>\n      Opp\u00a0&#8211;\u00a0NDPL\u00a0Office,\u00a0<br \/>\n      New\u00a0Delhi\u00ad110015\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>2.    Shri\u00a0S.K.\u00a0Varshney,<br \/>\n      Manager(CRM)\/CPIO<br \/>\n      Life\u00a0Insurance\u00a0Corpn.\u00a0Of\u00a0India,\u00a0<br \/>\n      Divisional\u00a0Office\u00ad1,\u00a0<br \/>\n      25,\u00a0Kasturba\u00a0Gandhi\u00a0Marg,\u00a0<br \/>\n      New\u00a0Delhi\u00ad110001<\/p>\n<p>3.    Shri\u00a0G.P.\u00a0Pandey<br \/>\n      Manager(Legal)\/AA<br \/>\n      Life\u00a0Insurance\u00a0Corpn.\u00a0Of\u00a0India,\u00a0<br \/>\n      Divisional\u00a0Office\u00ad1,\u00a0<br \/>\n      25,\u00a0Kasturba\u00a0Gandhi\u00a0Marg,\u00a0<br \/>\n      New\u00a0Delhi\u00ad110001 \u00a0<br \/>\n      \u00a0\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010 Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission Room\u00a0No.296,\u00a0II\u00a0Floor,\u00a0B\u00a0Wing,\u00a0August\u00a0Kranti\u00a0Bhawan,\u00a0Bhikaji\u00a0Cama\u00a0Place,\u00a0New\u00a0 Delhi\u00ad110066 Telefax:011\u00ad26180532\u00a0&amp;\u00a0011\u00ad26107254\u00a0website\u00adcic.gov.in \u00a0Appeal\u00a0\u00a0:\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/DS\/A\/2010\/000740 Appellant\u00a0\/Complainant : Shri\u00a0Prakash\u00a0Sidhwani,\u00a0New\u00a0Delhi\u00a0 Public\u00a0Authority : \u00a0Life\u00a0Insurance\u00a0Corpn.\u00a0Of\u00a0India,\u00a0N.Delhi (Sh.\u00a0S.K.\u00a0Varshney,\u00a0Mgr.(CRM)\/CPIO\u00a0 and Shri\u00a0G.P.\u00a0Pandey,\u00a0Mgr.(Legal) Date\u00a0of\u00a0Hearing\u00a0 : \u00a029\/11\/2010 Date\u00a0of\u00a0Decision : \u00a029\/11\/2010\u00a0 Facts :\u00ad\u00a0 1. The\u00a0applicant\u00a0preferred\u00a0RTI\u00a0application\u00a0dated\u00a014\u00a0September\u00a02009\u00a0 before\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO,\u00a0Life\u00a0Insurance\u00a0Corporation\u00a0of\u00a0India,\u00a0New\u00a0Delhi,\u00a0seeking\u00a0 information\u00a0through\u00a010\u00a0points\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0death\u00a0claim\u00a0preferred\u00a0under\u00a0 policy\u00a0number\u00a0114529122\u00a0&#8211;\u00a0enclosed\u00a0herewith\u00a0as\u00a0Annexure\u00a0A. 2. The\u00a0CPIO\u00a0vide\u00a0his\u00a0order\u00a0of\u00a028\u00a0October\u00a02009\u00a0provided\u00a0point\u00a0wise\u00a0 information\u00a0which\u00a0failed\u00a0to\u00a0satisfy\u00a0the\u00a0applicant\u00a0who\u00a0preferred\u00a0first\u00a0appeal\u00a0 received \u00a0 by \u00a0 respondent \u00a0 on \u00a0 17 \u00a0 November \u00a0 2009. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-242473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-12T02:15:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-12T02:15:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":816,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-12T02:15:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-12T02:15:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-12T02:15:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010"},"wordCount":816,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010","name":"Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-12T02:15:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-prakash-sidhwani-vs-insurance-division-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Prakash Sidhwani vs Insurance Division on 29 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242473","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=242473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242473\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}