New Delhi, The Central Information Commission has directed LIC to file a redacted response with information available to an RTI applicant who has sought information about certain loans allegedly obtained against him. $50,000 insurance policy which he claimed he “neither applied for nor requested”.
The commission passed the order after observing that the insurer had failed to justify denial of information under Section 8 of the RTI Act after LIC claimed that disclosure of the information could hamper the investigation as the matter was pending before the consumer forum and FIRs were filed.
Section 8 of the RTI Act excludes information that may hamper the process of investigation, arrest or prosecution of criminals.
No response was received from LIC to queries seeking comment.
The case relates to an RTI application seeking documents relating to two loans allegedly disbursed against the applicant’s policy, which had a maturity value of approx. $81.7 lakh.
The applicant asserted that he had earlier obtained loans from banks against the policy and repaid them. However, at the time of maturity, the life insurance company informed him of two additional loans – $10.45 lakh was allegedly disbursed in December 2007 and $15.89 lakh – which he denied benefiting from at all.
He asserted that he “never applied for or requested any of the said loans at any point of time” and claimed that the transactions were carried out without his consent, alleging the involvement of the LIC agent and others.
The applicant also claimed that the loan amounts were deposited in a joint bank account opened in his name with the LIC agent without his knowledge and that the funds were later transferred to another account linked to the agent and withdrawn.
He claimed that he “did not sign or attach any signature” to open such an account.
According to the policyholder, after adjusting these so-called loans along with the interest payable, the benefit amount payable was reduced to $36.67 thousand.
During the hearing, counsel for the appellant argued that the information requested only related to the policyholder and should have been disclosed.
“The appellant had sought copies of documents relating to the two loans he had taken under his life insurance policy, but the same was not provided,” the counsel submitted.
He added that the appellant did not know about the alleged loans until they were due, stressing that they were loans that the appellant “neither applied for nor requested.”
The respondent authority maintained that the information was denied as the matter was pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, and that two FIRs had been registered in the case, arguing that its disclosure could hamper the investigation.
In its written submission, LIC alleged that the appellant “concealed true and material facts” by not disclosing the progress of the case before the Consumer Forum and the ongoing police investigations, and termed the appeal an “abuse of process of law”.
However, when the Commission queried the defendant, he admitted that there was no court order restricting disclosure, and failed to explain how sharing information could impede the investigation.
The Commission also noted that the Respondent stated during the hearing that the requested records were not available but agreed to reconsider the RTI application and provide available information.
“The respondent confirmed during the hearing that the requested records were not available with him,” but that he “will reconsider the RTI application and provide available information on all points, to the appellant, in his revised response.”
“In light of the above facts, the respondent is directed to file a revised response on all points to the appellant,” the panel directed on April 8.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
