O R D E R

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information regarding forms and documents submitted for obtaining death claim of Appellant’s husband Late Madan Lal against various LIC policies.

The Manager (CRM/PIO) vide letter dated 22.07.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA.The FAA vide order dated 28.09.2022, furnished a reply to the Appellant and disposed off the Appeal.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present: Appellant: Present in Person Respondent: MrRajesh Tikoo Manager CRM, Present in Person The appellant, while reiterating the contents of the RTI application, submitted that no information has been furnished to her so far. She submitted that this RTI Application was filed to seek information regarding the policy claim of her deceased husband. She further stated that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, as she is the class I legal heir of the deceased husband and therefore is not a third party. She stated that she was the second wife of the deceased husband and that she was initially unaware of his death as they started living separately without divorce. She alleged that the son of the deceased husband's first wife, namely Pawan, produced a fake death certificate of his father before LIC. She submitted that the formalities regarding proof through a valid succession certificate were waived off by the LIC, on which no information has been given as to why they were waived off. She further said in the court case regarding the fake death certificate produced by Pawan, when the court directed him to produce the documents, Pawan did not comply with the court’s order. Therefore, she said the exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, does not apply.

The respondent countered the claim of the Appellant, stating that the first wife of the deceased husband is the nominee as per the records, and the payment has already been made to the said nominee. As the Appellant is not the nominee of the concerned policy, the information sought pertains to a third party and is therefore exempt from disclosure under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, he said and submitted that the maturity amount has already been transferred to Pawan, who is the son/legal heir of the deceased first wife (the nominee of the policy). He submitted that the formality regarding the succession certificate was waived by duly following the established rules of LIC as sufficient proofs were furnished by the son of the deceased nominee. He further submitted that the deceased policyholder has not changed or requested to change the name of the nominee even after the second marriage. Further he stated that the son of nominee has also produced an unregistered will of the policy holder which states that the appellant shall not be given information pertaining to any of his properties and policies.

The Appellant countered the claim of the respondents stating that the will is not registered and fake and therefore untenable as evidence.

Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both parties, the Commission is of the view that the plea taken by the respondent that the policy details pertain to third parties and hence cannot be shared seems untenable.

It is crucial to note that the policy in question is directly related to the appellant's deceased husband. Therefore, the decision to withhold information can only be made by the husband, who is unfortunately no longer alive to do so. As the appellant is her legally wedded wife, denying access to the policy details would unjustly deprive the appellant of vital information necessary for her to fight the court case to get justice. . The defence of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, cannot be invoked in this case, as the lack of such information would d