Central Information CommissionMahendra Kumar Saboo vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 8 January, 2020के ीय सूचना आयोग\n                             Central Information Commission\n                                   बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका\n                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                                नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NIACL/A/2018/136611-BJ\n\nMr. Mahendra Kumar Saboo\n                                                                         ....अपीलकता/Appellant\n                                           VERSUS\n                                            बनाम\n\n1.     CPIO & Chief Manager\n       The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.\n       Regd. & Head Office: New India Assurance Building\n       87, M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001\n\n2.     CPIO & Regional Manager\n       The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.\n       Regional Office, 330000, 2nd Floor\n       Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur - 302015\n\n                                                                     ... ितवादीगण /Respondent\n\nDate of Hearing       :                     07.01.2020\nDate of Decision      :                     08.01.2020\n\nDate of RTI application                                                    22.11.2017\nCPIO's response                                                            21.12.2017\nDate of the First Appeal                                                   22.01.2018\nFirst Appellate Authority's response                                       16.02.2018\nDate of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission                       08.06.2018\n\n                                          ORDERFACTS:The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the total number of\npremiums received and total claims settled on all India basis for the financial year 2015-16 and\n2016-17 for New India Mediclaim Policy 2012 and New India Floater Mediclaim Policy.The CPIO, vide its letter dated 21.12.2017, denied disclosure of informationu/s 8(1)(d)of the\nRTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA.\nThe FAA, vide its order dated 16.02.2018, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt inCBSE & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.(2011) 8 SCC 497 and Institute of\nChartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya(2011) 8 SCC 781 and further stated thatPage 1 of 4the details of the consolidated figures of total premiums and claims/incurred claims figures for\nhealth portfolio are already disclosed in public domain and provided the URL.HEARING:Facts emerging during the hearing:The following were present:Appellant: Absent;Respondent: Mr. R.N. Chakrabarty, CPIO (HQ), Mumbai and Mrs. Ranjana Nighot,\nDy. Manager, Mumbai through VC;The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Vijay, Network Engineer NIC studio at\nJaipur confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Commission was in receipt of a written\nsubmission from the Appellant dated Nil wherein while making a point-wise submission,\nrequested the Commission to instruct the Respondent Public Authority to furnish the required\ndata as sought in the RTI application. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the submissions of\nthe CPIO / FAA. It was articulated that the total health insurance premium data was available in\npublic domain but for the products mentioned in the RTI application, the same could not be\ndisclosed due to commercial confidentiality in accordance withSection 8 (1) (d)of the RTI Act,\n2005. Due to stiff competition from the private players, it was not prudent to disclose such\ndetails. On a query from the Commission, if any Parliament question was answered in this\nrespect, he replied in the negative. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission\nfrom the Respondent dated 03.01.2020 wherein the response of the CPIO/FAA was reiterated. It\nwas further submitted that the information sought attracts exemptionu/s 2(f),2(n)&8(1) (d)of\nthe RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, it has always been their endeavor to promote the objectives of\nthe RTI in letter and spirit.The Commission referred to the definition of informationu/s 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005 which is\nreproduced below:"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-\n       mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,\n       papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information\n       relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other\n       law for the time being in force."Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract ofSection 2 (j)of the RTI Act,\n2005 which reads as under:"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which\n       is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC\n497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor\n       required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to\n       'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' insection 2(f)of the Act, only\n       refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public\n       authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion toPage 2 of 4the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation\n       under theRTI Act."Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative\nOfficer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010)\nhad held as under:6. "....Under the RTI Act"information" is defined underSection 2(f)which provides:"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-\n       mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,\n       papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information\n       relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other\n       law for the time being in force."This definition shows that an applicant underSection 6of the RTI Act can get any\n       information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under\n       law. Of course, under theRTI Actan applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions,\n       advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such\n       opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not\n       before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. UnderSection 6of\n       the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed\n       by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers\n       sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority\n       nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged\n       to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was\n       before him."In the context of non disclosure of information underSection 8(1)(d)of the RTI Act, 2005, the\ndecision inNaresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (W.P(C) 85/2010) decided on 24.11.2014,\nwas referred to, wherein it was held as under:14. "....Such information would clearly disclose the pricing policy of the assessee and\n       public disclosure of this information may clearly jeopardise the bargaining power\n       available to the assessee since the data as to costs would be available to all agencies\n       dealing with the assessee. It is, thus, essential that information relating to business\n       affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is\n       necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is\n       such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one's competitive\n       interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such\n       information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party. In order to\n       test the applicability ofSection 8(1)(d)of the Act it is necessary to first and foremost\n       determine the nature of information and if the nature of information is confidential\n       information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to be placed in\n       public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have\n       an adverse effect on third parties."Page 3 of 4The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the\nlarger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.DECISION:Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further\nintervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the\nAppellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)\n                                                  (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)\n\n\n\n\n(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)\n(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)\n011-26182598/[email protected]दनांक / Date: 08.01.2020Page 4 of 4