CIC: Appropriate reply has not been furnished by the PIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act; PIO directed to seek clarification from the appellant and furnish information - CIC: Look into the grievance of the Appellant in accordance with the guidelines

CIC: An appropriate reply has not been furnished by the PIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act; PIO directed to seek clarification from the appellant and furnish correct and complete information to the appellant, free of cost

CIC advised the respondent to look into the grievance of the Appellant in accordance with the extant guidelines, if necessary by calling the Appellant to their Office at a mutually convenient date and time to resolve the above said issue in a time bound manner

O R D E R

FACTS

The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-

1. Standard Operating Procedure of a claim if:

a. The declaration submitted by the Insured at the time of the Proposal is not traceable/is missing,

b. The declaration submitted at the time of Proposal is not clearly readable or is damaged,

c. The declaration submitted at the time of Proposal is found to be defective or is seen incomplete.

2. The time period in days the insurance Company waits to trace a missing declaration if it is not traceable at the time of Processing the admission of thenclaim.

3. How serious a missing declaration from the Proposal File is considered by the company?

4. Year wise /Branch Wise statistics of the instances of missing declaration at the time of processing of claim for the decade 2011-2020.

The PIO vide letter dated 21.07.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 28.09.2022, disposed off the Appeal.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jain attended the hearing,

Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Grover, Chief Manager and Mr. Pramod Pandey, Manager, Mr. Rajesh Mehta, Manager and Mr. C.B Sharma, Dy. Manager, attended the hearing.

DECISION:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by both the parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO, to seek clarification from the appellant within a period of 05 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also advises the appellant to revert on the clarification letter issued to him by the respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. After receiving the clarification from the appellant, the respondent shall furnish correct and complete information to the appellant, free of cost, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

The Commission further advises the Respondent public authority to look into the grievance of the Appellant in accordance with the extant guidelines, if necessary by calling the Appellant to their Office at a mutually convenient date and time to resolve the above said issue in a time bound manner, thus adhering to the law of natural justice.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jain v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, CIC/OICOL/A/2022/669097-UM; Date of Decision: 17.10.2023