Details of family pension
The Appellant was admitted to Venkatrama Hospital, Visakhapatnam for an orthopedic surgery on his left leg tibia on account of a fracture. The Appellant was operated upon on 25.01.1998 by Dr. C. Dharma Rao, while he was still Superintendent of KG. Hospital. After a lapse of one year, the Appellant suffered a re-fracture with a failed implant. Ultimately Appellant was referred to Apollo Hospital, Chennai in the year 1999 where the damage was rectified and Appellant have not had any adverse experience thereafter. However due to the rash and negligent act of the parties involved in the first operation, Appellant has lost his employment with Tata Steel who offered him an Early Separation Settlement on medical grounds due to long absence on account of the failed operation. In the year 2000, the Appellant filed a consumer Case against the Venkatrama Hospital, its Proprietors and the attending Surgeon Dr. C. Dharma Rao had expired on 20/2/2009 at Puttaparthy Andhra Pradesh.
The appellant submitted that the court proceeding held on 8th Nov' 2010 at National Commission, New Delhi has allowed for substitution notice to be sent to his wife and legal heirs. He further submitted that as per information given by office of the Sub Treasury, his wife Smt. C. Urmila Devi is drawing her family pension from the bank. He desired to know the total amount of pension she is drawing every month so that National Commission New Delhi can be informed accordingly.
The PIO denied information while claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act. The appellant filed appeal before FAA who rejected the appeal. The FAA observed that the information called relates to personal information of the Customer/ account holder of the Bank which is held in commercial confidence and is no way related to any Public activity or interest. Moreover, the information is exempted under sections 8(1)(d),(e) & (j) of RTI Act and Sec. 13 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition) Act 1970.
View of CIC
The Commission noted that the appellant had sought information about the pension being deposited in the account of Mrs. C. Urmila Devi. He claims that he is trying to expose corrupt practices and hence the information should be given to him. The Bank has denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that a clear fiduciary relationship exists and unless a large public interest is shown, the information is exempt from disclosure. As no larger public interest has been demonstrated, the Commission rejected the appeal.
Citation: Mr. Mehernosh K Khambatta v. Andhra Bank Andhra Pradesh in Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002118/15549