के(cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग,(cid:6981) मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:7367)तीय अपील सं(cid:6990)या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOFSR/A/2022/135786 Parveen Kumar … अपीलकता(cid:6981)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO:

…(cid:7079)ितवादीगण/Respondents

1. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

2. State Bank of India, Mumbai Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 23.12.2021 FA : 10.02.2022 SA : 17.06.2022 Reply : 05.03.2022 NA Hearing : 08.04.2024 Date of Decision: 08.04.2024 CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.12.2021 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “पोिलसी नं 00000000XXXXXXX2-01 का OPD (cid:6989)लेम 1947 (cid:7271)पए का (cid:7079)वीण कुमार क(cid:7409) तरफ से डाला गया था परंतु उसका केवल 500 (cid:7271)पए (cid:6989)लेम ही (cid:7408)दया गया ह ैजब(cid:7408)क पॉिलसी

म(cid:7286) OPD (cid:6989)लेम 1500 (cid:7271)पए ह ैपरूा (cid:6989)लेम न दने े का कारण बताया जाए ।

(ii) पॉिलसी नं 00000000XXXXXX62-02 (cid:6989)लेम नं 5219673 का (cid:7079)वीण कुमार का

Hospitalization का म(cid:6989)ैस ह(cid:7021)पताल ब(cid:7411)ठंडा क(cid:7409) तरफ स े32629 (cid:7271)पए िबल Paramount TPA को Submit करवाए गए ले(cid:7408)कन उनक(cid:7409) (परैामाउंट TPA) से 2720 (cid:7271)पए िड(cid:7021)काउंट और 5434 (cid:7271)पए Deduct करके 24475 (cid:7271)पए क(cid:7409) Approval दी गयी | जब(cid:7408)क पािलसी "०" िडड(cid:6989)शन पािलसी ह ैिडड(cid:6989)ट क(cid:7409) गयी अमाउंट कोन से िनयमो तहत क(cid:7409) गयी ह ैउसक(cid:7409) कॉपी दी जाए और सबिमट करवाए िबल म(cid:7286) से िजस आइटम का (cid:6989)लेम नह(cid:7277) (cid:7408)दया गया उसक(cid:7409)

जानकारी और बह पोिलसी म (cid:7286)कहा म(cid:7286)शन ह ैक(cid:7409) जानकारी मुिहया करवाई जाए ।“

2. Dissatisfied with non-response of the respondent, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.02.2022 alleging that no reply was given in response to his RTI application.

3. Thereafter, the Legal Officer, SBI General Insurance Company Limited, replied vide letter dated 05.03.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“We are not a Public Authority as defined in the section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore unable to provide the information sought by you in the application.”

4. Aggrieved with the non-response to his first appeal, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.06.2022.

Hearing on 14.02.2024:

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and the respondent remained absent.

6. The Commission passed the following directions on 20.02.2024:

“7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observes that the respondent has replied vide letter dated 05.03.2022 that SBI General Insurance Company Limited was not a ‘Public Authority’ as defined under the provisions of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. However, perusal of the second appeal reveals that the appellant had raised a contention regarding bringing the respondent within the ambit of ‘Public Authority’ as defined under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. It may be noted that the matter involves substantial questions of law for determination of issues for consideration before the Commission. In view of the above, only to the limited extent of position of respondent authority being a private entity or not, the Commission deems it fit that CPIO, State Bank of India, be summoned for hearing and the submissions made thereof may be taken on record to enable the Commission to adjudicate the matter. The Nodal CPIO, State Bank of India, is directed to submit detailed written submissions whether SBI General Insurance Company Limited may be brought under the ambit of ‘Public Authority’ as per Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.

Accordingly, the matter is adjourned.”

Hearing on 08.04.2024:

7. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sujeet Kumar, CPIO (Department of Associate and Subsidiary Unit