The cause of death of Shri Prashant Singh as mentioned by his successors in the death claim form while claiming the amount from the insurance company was denied claiming that it was third party information - CIC: information denied u/s 8(1)(j)
23 Apr, 2014Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh, has submitted RTI application dated 21 November 2012, before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Agra; seeking information relating to the reason for death, mentioned by the family members of policy holder Late Shri Prashant Singh in the death claim form while claiming the amount from the respondent company in the policy Nos.260846116, 2464676205, 263890944 & 261967783.
2. Vide order dated 31 December 2012, CPIO denied the information to the appellant under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 18 January 2013, to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Vide order dated 31 January 2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.
3. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh participated in the hearing from Agra. The respondent Shri A.P. Narang, Manager (CRM) and CPIO, also attended the hearing from Agra.
5. The appellant submitted that he desired to know the cause of death of Shri Prashant Singh as mentioned by his successor/successors. The respondent stated that this was 3rd party information and Smt. Ruchi Singh, wife of Late Shri Prashant Singh had asked them not to provide any information in this matter to anybody. He also stated that she had been addressed under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005 and her refusal to part with information is available with him.
Decision notice
6. The Commission upholds the decision of the CPIO denying information under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act 2005. The appeal is dismissed and case is closed at the Commission’s end.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh v. LIC of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000673/MP