New Delhi, Apr 21 (PTI) The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the LIC to furnish a revised reply along with the available information to an RTI applicant who had sought information on certain loans allegedly taken against his Rs 50 lakh insurance policy that he claimed he had “neither applied nor requested” for.
The commission passed the order after observing that the insurer failed to justify the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act after the LIC claimed that the disclosure of information could impede the investigation as the matter was pending before a consumer forum and FIRs had been lodged.
Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders.
No response was received from the LIC to queries seeking comment.
The case relates to an RTI application seeking documents concerning two loans allegedly disbursed against the applicant’s policy, which had a maturity value of about Rs 81.7 lakh.
The applicant submitted that he had earlier taken loans from banks against the policy and repaid them. However, at the time of maturity, the LIC informed him of two additional loans — Rs 10.45 lakh allegedly disbursed in December 2007 and Rs 15.89 lakh — which he denied ever availing.
He asserted that he had “never applied or requested for any of the aforesaid loans at any point of time” and alleged that the transactions were carried out without his consent, claiming involvement of an LIC agent and others.
The applicant further alleged that the loan amounts were deposited into a joint bank account opened in his name along with an LIC agent without his knowledge and that the funds were subsequently transferred to another account linked to the agent and withdrawn.
He claimed he had “never signed or appended any signature” for opening such an account.
According to the policyholder, after adjusting these alleged loans along with accrued interest, the payable maturity amount was reduced to Rs 36.67 lakh.
During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel argued that the information sought pertained solely to the policyholder and should have been disclosed.
“The appellant had sought copies of documents related to his two loans taken against his own LIC policy, but the same was not provided,” the counsel submitted.
He added that the appellant came to know about the alleged loans only at the time of maturity, asserting that these were loans “which the appellant had neither applied nor requested for”.
The respondent authority maintained that the information was denied as the matter was pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Lucknow, and that two FIRs had been registered in the case, arguing that disclosure could hamper the investigation.
In its written submission, the LIC contended that the appellant had “concealed true and material facts” by not disclosing the pendency of the case before the consumer forum and ongoing police investigations, and termed the appeal an “abuse of the process of law”.
However, when queried by the commission, the respondent admitted that there was no court order restraining disclosure and failed to adequately explain how sharing the information would impede the investigation.
The commission also noted that the respondent stated during the hearing that records sought were not available but agreed to revisit the RTI application and provide the information available.
“The respondent during hearing submitted that the records sought are not available with them,” but they will “revisit RTI application and provide available information on all points, to the appellant, in their revised reply.” “In the light of the above facts, the respondent is directed to provide revised reply on all points to the appellant,” the Commission directed on April 8. PTI MHS MHS MNK MNK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.