Details of family members against whom the Cashier availed medi-claim and other facilities was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: no larger public interest has been established for the disclosure of ‘personal information’ of third party; appeal dismissed
21 Dec, 2013ORDER
Facts:
1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 28 August 2012 before the PIO/Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Fazilka, seeking information relating to the details of members of family against whom Mr. Vinod Kumar (Cashier at Fazilka Branch) S/o Shri Bihari Lal, is availing mediclaim and other facilities since 01.04.1988.
2. Appellant preferred complaint to this Commission dated 01 December 2012 as he had not received any information from the concerned PIO.
3. Vide this Commission’s Order dated 28 May 2013, the Commission has directed the FAA to decide the matter.
4. Vide FAA Order dated 02 July 2013, the FAA held that the information sought is a third party information and comes under Commercial Confidence between the parties concerned and our Company, hence the same cannot be disclosed 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. Since no public interest justifies the disclosure of such information and providing personal information causes unwarranted invasion of privacy of the third party concerned, the information now as desired in the appeal, cannot be provided.
5. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the Appellant preferred Second Appeal before the Commission. 6. Matter was heard today via videoconferencing. Appellant was present at Sirsa while Respondents made submissions from Ludhiana and Mumbai.
Decision Notice
7. After hearing the submissions of the parties, Commission is of the view that the information sought by the appellant attracts 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 and further no larger public interest has been established by the Appellant for the disclosure of ‘personal information’ pertaining to third party.
8. Hence, FAA’s Order is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.
9. With the above observation, Case is closed at the Commission’s end.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Raj Kumar Khera v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002639