CIC: The queries raised are clarificatory and interpretative of certain mediclaim policy - CIC: Respondent cautioned for not transferring the RTI application within the stipulated time period [Sec 6(3)] and for not adhering to the time limits [Sec 7(1)]

CIC: The queries raised are clarificatory and interpretative in nature of certain documents of mediclaim policy and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, this cannot be expected from the PIO - CIC: The Respondent cautioned for not transferring the RTI application within the stipulated time period as mentioned in Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, as also for not adhering to the time limits for responding to the RTI application as per Section 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: of the RTI Act

O R D E R

1. The Complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO(s)), National Insurance Company Limited, Manager, Kochi Regional Office, Omana Building, Jews Street, Padma Junction, Kochi and National Insurance Company Limited, Manager, Head Office, Chhabi Das Towers, Middleton Street, Kolkata seeking information on five points pertaining to National Mediclaim Policy which was supposed to be replaced for Medicalim Insurance Policy- Individual

2. The CPIO vide his letter dated 20.08.2018 provided a point-wise response to the Complainant wherein for points 01 to 04, stated that the information sought was not available with them and therefore, the application was referred to the Head Office, for necessary action at their end and for point 05, the available information was provided. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the Head Office, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.10.2018 endorsed the CPIO’s response for points 01 to 04 of the application and requested the Complainant to correspond with the HO for further clarification. Thereafter, he filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, before the Commission requesting to furnish the complete information and to pay compensation for inordinate delay on the part of the Respondent Public Authority.

Hearing:

3. The Complainant remained absent during the hearing. The mobile number of the Complainant is not available on the record of the Commission. He did not appear at VC centre as well. Due to COVID-19 circumstances prevailing in the Country, there was no other way of communication with him. The Respondent from RO, Mr. Xavier Alexander, CPIO and from HO Mrs. Mahua Mukherjee, CPIO, respectively, were present during the hearing through audio call. The written submission of the Respondent, RTI Department, HO, Kolkata, was taken on record.

4. The Respondent from RO reiterated the background of the case and submitted that for points 01 to 04, the application was forwarded to the Head Office, as information sought was not related to their office. As regards point no. 05, the available information was provided to the Complainant. A reference was also made to a letter dated 05.07.2018 wherein it was informed the Complainant that “the postal order is not correctly addressed and therefore, requested him to resubmit the application along with the proper postal order. Thereafter, on 24.07.2018, he corrected and sent a proper postal order and accordingly, he was replied on 20.08.2018

5. The Respondent from HO submitted that a response was given on points 01 to 04 of the application to the Complainant through RO Kochi Office (SFA), the custodian department. She further submitted that a proper reply was sent to the Complainant on 02.01.2019 by Shri P. Jayachandran, RM, RO, Kochi, through registered post.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after perusal of records, observes that the queries raised under points 01 to 04 of the RTI application are clarificatory and interpretative in nature of certain documents of mediclaim policy and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, this cannot be expected from the CPIO to clarify the queries putforth by the Complainant. Nonetheless, Respondent, RO, Kochi on 02.01.2019 by registered post tried to clarify the situation to the Complainant beyond the scope of the RTI Act, 2005.

7. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

8. The Respondent, RO and HO, is however cautioned for not transferring the RTI application within the stipulated time period as mentioned in Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, as also for not adhering to the time limits for responding to the RTI application as per Section 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission also instructs the Respondents RO and HO to be alert and vigilant in attending to the RTI applications, within the prescribed time limit.

9. With the above observations, the Complaint is disposed of.

10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta

Information Commissioner

Citation: M K Mukundan v. National Insurance Company Limited in Complaint No. CIC/NINCL/C/2018/172427, Date of order: 22.09.2020