Copy of medical record of appellant’s deceased wife was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Respondent: The appellant was not the nominee of the her employment benefits; the deceased had appointed her minor daughter as her beneficiary - CIC: Denial upheld
18 Feb, 2016ORDER
1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated December 30, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), LIC of India, Bangalore; seeking certified copies of all the documents pertaining to medical record of his deceased wife Smt. Adilakshmamma (S.R No. 508239) who was an exemployee of LIC of India and had got treatment at KIMS, Institute of Nephrology and K C general Hospital, Bangalore etc.; through a total of 3 points.
2. Vide letter dated January 4, 2014; the CPIO denied the information u/s 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 with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated January 17, 2014 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated January 30, 2014; the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and also informed that the appellant was not a nominee to any of Smt. Adilakshmamma’s employment benefits/proceeds hence he was a third party to the information.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative submitted that the appellant had sought three sets of documents comprising the medical records of his deceased wife Smt. Adilakshmamma but he was denied the information u/s 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 stating that he was not the nominee of the deceased employee’s employment benefits. She stated that the appellant sought these documents to produce before the Consumer Forum where he had filed a case regarding the medical negligence committed by the doctors treating his wife which led to her death. The appellant’s representative also stated that the appellant was not seeking any claim amount from the respondents and was only interested in getting those medical documents from the respondents.
5. The respondents submitted that the documents/ medical records had been sent to the Insurance Company and they do not have any original medical records of the deceased Smt. Adilakshmamma. They only have the copy of one of the documents of Institute of Nephro Urology, Victoria Hospital, Bangalore i.e. of medical certificate of cause of death. They stated that the deceased Smt. Adilakshmamma had appointed her minor daughter Kum Anusa as her beneficiary for all the amounts and to her estate. She had appointed her mother Smt. Rathnamma as the guardian of her minor daughter to look after the estate till she attained majority. She had also nominated her mother Smt. Rathnamma for provident Fund, Gratuity, Group Term Insurance Scheme. The respondents added that there was a suit going on between the appellant and the mother of the deceased for the succession certificate which had not been finalized till date, therefore in those circumstances they treated the appellant as third party to the information, hence denied the information.
6. In view of the position that the appellant is not the nominee and for successor of Smt. Adilakshmamma, the documents relating to her cannot be provided to him being personal information of the deceased employee of LIC of India. The Commission accepts the submissions made by the respondents and upholds their decision. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Narayanswamy v. LIC of India in LIC of India Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001011