Yogakshemam Vahāmyaham: Slowly, Slowly, Unless You Prod Me With RTI
Ask any officer who knows something about the RTI Act and he/she will tell you, this law is being ‘misused’ by people to settle grievances. This story is about one such ‘misuse’.
Sukhlal son of Gadhau of Ramnagar in Anuppur district, Madhya Pradesh bought an insurance policy worth Rs. 25,000/- from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in September 1989. He had named his wife Smt. Rambai as the nominee and paid the premiums regularly. The insurance policy was to mature in the 15th year, in September 2004. Sukhlal was killed in a road accident in January that year. The grieving widow informed the LIC office of the accidental death and claimed the insurance amount that was due to her. On 30th September the LIC office sent a cheque for Rs. 25,000/- in the name of Sukhlal and washed its hands off the case. However under the terms of the policy his wife was entitled to double benefit in case of death by accident. She should have been paid Rs. 50,000/- and the cheque should have been drawn in her favour. So Smt. Rambai returned the cheque with a request that the full amount be paid as per the terms of the policy agreement.
Then began the long wait and her frequent visits to the LIC office situated at Kothma Block of Shahdol district adjacent to Annuppur. The huge bureaucracy went on processing her claim without telling her when she would see the light at the end of the tunnel. Fed up with the ‘kind’ treatment at the hands of the LIC office, for 30 months, Smt. Rambai contacted Mr. Sunil Chaurasia a journalist. He also doubles up as the Chairperson of the District Consumer Forum in Anuppur. Mr. Chaurasia made telephone calls to the Branch office enquiring about the progress made on her claim. He was assured that the claim was being processed and that the payment would be made soon. Still there was no sign of the money. On 31st May 2006 Mr. Chaurasia sent a written complaint to the Branch Manager informing about the lack of progress made on the claim. LIC did not bother to respond to that complaint at all.
Fed up with the lack of response Mr. Chaurasia filed an RTI application with the PIO of the Branch five months later. On 23rd November he submitted an RTI request seeking the following information:-
1) Details of action taken on the complaint sent by him in May that year.
2) Name and designation of officers responsible for not finalising Smt. Rambai’s claim along with information about legal provisions for punishing such officers.
3) Details of additional facilities and benefits available to nominees whose claims had been put on the backburner in this manner.
4) By which date would the cheque in lieu of payment would be sent to Smt. Rambai.
5) Reasons for non-payment of the claim till date.
Mr. Chaurasia did not even receive an acknowledgement from the PIO. As has become tradition in many government offices after the enforcement of the RTI Act Chaurasia’s application set the wheels in motion. The officers of the LIC Branch held a meeting on the 24th. They issued a cheque for Rs. 33,344/- being the first instalment of the payment on the 25th and made sure that it was delivered to Smt. Rambai on the 26th! Hail RTI! It worked like a magic wand. Smt. Ramabai’s story had a happy ending.
Nevertheless Mr. Chaurasia was not about to sit contented. Accountability of erring officials had to be fixed. After waiting for 30 days for a response from the PIO he filed an appeal with the Appellate Authority. LIC returned his appeal letter asking him to file it before the Appellate Authority (AA) at Shahdol. Earlier in May when Mr. Chaurasia had sought details of the PIO and Appellate Authorities the LIC office had informed him that all appeals under the RTI Act would have to be sent to Bhopal. Another case of a public authority misleading citizens under the RTI Act. Mr. Chaurasia filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission on 19th March 2007.
The CIC issued notice to the PIO and the AA. Both parties were summoned for a hearing on 25th July, 2007. Meanwhile LIC sent a rejoinder to the appeal filed by Mr. Chaurasia. The Zonal Manager argued that Mr. Chaurasia was asking about the claims of a nominee without proper authorisation letter and that he was unrelated third party to the case. Nevertheless LIC claimed that it had sent him a letter on 12th December informing him that the cheque for Rs. 33,344/- had been sent to Smt. Rambai. It must be noted here that this letter never reached Mr. Chaurasia. He received a copy of that letter only with the rejoinder sent to his second appeal filed before the CIC. The Zonal Manager stated that a technical problem in the computer module was the reason for the delay in payment as a result of which the payment could not be processed on time. He stated that on 9th July 2007 Rs. 4,707/- had also been paid as interest for the period of delay. He also claimed that Shahdol was a remote place and officers were being transferred frequently. Hence the RTI application could not be processed on time and that they would ensure proper training for officials.
On the day of the hearing the PIO and another officer representing the AA attended the hearing. Mr. Chaurasia preferred to send an authorised representative to argue his case. The Commission asked the PIO to explain the case. When he explained the details of the case and stated that the insurance amount had been paid along with interest the Commission asked the appellant’s representative as to what further cause remained to be examined in this case. The Commission was reminded that the appeal was not about the claim of Smt. Rambai. It was about the details of action taken on Mr. Chaurasia’s complaint. There was simply no question of treating him as third party in this case. Though information was given on points #3 and 4 the information requested at # 2 and 5 was pending. This related to accountability of officers responsible for the delay. The Commission agreed with the view that fixing accountability was important as there was undue delay in the settlement of the claim. The LIC officers agreed that the delay was of an inordinate nature. But they could not pinpoint responsibility of officers for technical problems faced with the computer system. This was another case of a public authority misleading the Commission. The appellant’s representative pointed out that the chain of decision making, supervision and accountability mechanisms have to be disclosed proactively under the Act. This RTI application sought similar information with reference to a particular case.
Then the LIC officers pushed forward a letter purportedly signed by Smt. Ramabai with her thumb impression in the presence of two witnesses stating that her claims had been settled and no further action was necessary. The appellant’s representative argued that such documents are often created by using pressure and coercion, so not much attention need be paid to it. Furthermore the LIC officers had to justify why they did not provide the appellant with all the information requested. The Commission agreed with this view and ordered LIC to disclose the identity of all officers who were involved in the decision making process on Smt. Rambai’s claim.
Mr. Chaurasia had indeed ‘misused’ the RTI act to settle a grievance. This had become necessary because the existing mechanism for grievance redressal simply did not work for months on end. The statutory time limit for responding to RTI applications, the threat of penalty for contraventions and most importantly the humiliation of having to record reasons for acts of omission and commission are the main reasons why RTI works where nothing else does. Within 2 days of filing the RTI application the first instalment was paid. Within a month of receiving the notice from the CIC the interest was paid. RTI can have an electric effect when LIC forgets its motto – Yogakshemam vahāmyaham.
But merely using RTI like a magic wand is not enough. Accountability must be fixed. Mr. Chaurasia is waiting for the name of officers who worked on Smt. Rambai’s claim. He plans to take the matter up with the insurance ombudsman - the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority.
(Yogakshemam Vahāmyaham the motto of LIC is a phrase picked from Lord Krishna’s statement in Chapter 9 of the Bhagavad Gita. The Lord promises to be the purveyor of the wellbeing of his devotees who repose their faith in him.)
Compiled by Venkatesh Nayak for CHRI Delhi.
(Sunil Chaurasia is Chief Editor Koylanchal Times and a core group member of the Suchana Adhikar Abhiyan network on Madhya Pradesh. CHRI works with the Abhiyan on RTI related issues.)
Ask any officer who knows something about the RTI Act and he/she will tell you, this law is being ‘misused’ by people to settle grievances. This story is about one such ‘misuse’.
Sukhlal son of Gadhau of Ramnagar in Anuppur district, Madhya Pradesh bought an insurance policy worth Rs. 25,000/- from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in September 1989. He had named his wife Smt. Rambai as the nominee and paid the premiums regularly. The insurance policy was to mature in the 15th year, in September 2004. Sukhlal was killed in a road accident in January that year. The grieving widow informed the LIC office of the accidental death and claimed the insurance amount that was due to her. On 30th September the LIC office sent a cheque for Rs. 25,000/- in the name of Sukhlal and washed its hands off the case. However under the terms of the policy his wife was entitled to double benefit in case of death by accident. She should have been paid Rs. 50,000/- and the cheque should have been drawn in her favour. So Smt. Rambai returned the cheque with a request that the full amount be paid as per the terms of the policy agreement.
Then began the long wait and her frequent visits to the LIC office situated at Kothma Block of Shahdol district adjacent to Annuppur. The huge bureaucracy went on processing her claim without telling her when she would see the light at the end of the tunnel. Fed up with the ‘kind’ treatment at the hands of the LIC office, for 30 months, Smt. Rambai contacted Mr. Sunil Chaurasia a journalist. He also doubles up as the Chairperson of the District Consumer Forum in Anuppur. Mr. Chaurasia made telephone calls to the Branch office enquiring about the progress made on her claim. He was assured that the claim was being processed and that the payment would be made soon. Still there was no sign of the money. On 31st May 2006 Mr. Chaurasia sent a written complaint to the Branch Manager informing about the lack of progress made on the claim. LIC did not bother to respond to that complaint at all.
Fed up with the lack of response Mr. Chaurasia filed an RTI application with the PIO of the Branch five months later. On 23rd November he submitted an RTI request seeking the following information:-
1) Details of action taken on the complaint sent by him in May that year.
2) Name and designation of officers responsible for not finalising Smt. Rambai’s claim along with information about legal provisions for punishing such officers.
3) Details of additional facilities and benefits available to nominees whose claims had been put on the backburner in this manner.
4) By which date would the cheque in lieu of payment would be sent to Smt. Rambai.
5) Reasons for non-payment of the claim till date.
Mr. Chaurasia did not even receive an acknowledgement from the PIO. As has become tradition in many government offices after the enforcement of the RTI Act Chaurasia’s application set the wheels in motion. The officers of the LIC Branch held a meeting on the 24th. They issued a cheque for Rs. 33,344/- being the first instalment of the payment on the 25th and made sure that it was delivered to Smt. Rambai on the 26th! Hail RTI! It worked like a magic wand. Smt. Ramabai’s story had a happy ending.
Nevertheless Mr. Chaurasia was not about to sit contented. Accountability of erring officials had to be fixed. After waiting for 30 days for a response from the PIO he filed an appeal with the Appellate Authority. LIC returned his appeal letter asking him to file it before the Appellate Authority (AA) at Shahdol. Earlier in May when Mr. Chaurasia had sought details of the PIO and Appellate Authorities the LIC office had informed him that all appeals under the RTI Act would have to be sent to Bhopal. Another case of a public authority misleading citizens under the RTI Act. Mr. Chaurasia filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission on 19th March 2007.
The CIC issued notice to the PIO and the AA. Both parties were summoned for a hearing on 25th July, 2007. Meanwhile LIC sent a rejoinder to the appeal filed by Mr. Chaurasia. The Zonal Manager argued that Mr. Chaurasia was asking about the claims of a nominee without proper authorisation letter and that he was unrelated third party to the case. Nevertheless LIC claimed that it had sent him a letter on 12th December informing him that the cheque for Rs. 33,344/- had been sent to Smt. Rambai. It must be noted here that this letter never reached Mr. Chaurasia. He received a copy of that letter only with the rejoinder sent to his second appeal filed before the CIC. The Zonal Manager stated that a technical problem in the computer module was the reason for the delay in payment as a result of which the payment could not be processed on time. He stated that on 9th July 2007 Rs. 4,707/- had also been paid as interest for the period of delay. He also claimed that Shahdol was a remote place and officers were being transferred frequently. Hence the RTI application could not be processed on time and that they would ensure proper training for officials.
On the day of the hearing the PIO and another officer representing the AA attended the hearing. Mr. Chaurasia preferred to send an authorised representative to argue his case. The Commission asked the PIO to explain the case. When he explained the details of the case and stated that the insurance amount had been paid along with interest the Commission asked the appellant’s representative as to what further cause remained to be examined in this case. The Commission was reminded that the appeal was not about the claim of Smt. Rambai. It was about the details of action taken on Mr. Chaurasia’s complaint. There was simply no question of treating him as third party in this case. Though information was given on points #3 and 4 the information requested at # 2 and 5 was pending. This related to accountability of officers responsible for the delay. The Commission agreed with the view that fixing accountability was important as there was undue delay in the settlement of the claim. The LIC officers agreed that the delay was of an inordinate nature. But they could not pinpoint responsibility of officers for technical problems faced with the computer system. This was another case of a public authority misleading the Commission. The appellant’s representative pointed out that the chain of decision making, supervision and accountability mechanisms have to be disclosed proactively under the Act. This RTI application sought similar information with reference to a particular case.
Then the LIC officers pushed forward a letter purportedly signed by Smt. Ramabai with her thumb impression in the presence of two witnesses stating that her claims had been settled and no further action was necessary. The appellant’s representative argued that such documents are often created by using pressure and coercion, so not much attention need be paid to it. Furthermore the LIC officers had to justify why they did not provide the appellant with all the information requested. The Commission agreed with this view and ordered LIC to disclose the identity of all officers who were involved in the decision making process on Smt. Rambai’s claim.
Mr. Chaurasia had indeed ‘misused’ the RTI act to settle a grievance. This had become necessary because the existing mechanism for grievance redressal simply did not work for months on end. The statutory time limit for responding to RTI applications, the threat of penalty for contraventions and most importantly the humiliation of having to record reasons for acts of omission and commission are the main reasons why RTI works where nothing else does. Within 2 days of filing the RTI application the first instalment was paid. Within a month of receiving the notice from the CIC the interest was paid. RTI can have an electric effect when LIC forgets its motto – Yogakshemam vahāmyaham.
But merely using RTI like a magic wand is not enough. Accountability must be fixed. Mr. Chaurasia is waiting for the name of officers who worked on Smt. Rambai’s claim. He plans to take the matter up with the insurance ombudsman - the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority.
(Yogakshemam Vahāmyaham the motto of LIC is a phrase picked from Lord Krishna’s statement in Chapter 9 of the Bhagavad Gita. The Lord promises to be the purveyor of the wellbeing of his devotees who repose their faith in him.)
Compiled by Venkatesh Nayak for CHRI Delhi.
(Sunil Chaurasia is Chief Editor Koylanchal Times and a core group member of the Suchana Adhikar Abhiyan network on Madhya Pradesh. CHRI works with the Abhiyan on RTI related issues.)
No comments:
Post a Comment