The Central Information Commission has pulled up United India Insurance Company Limited (UIICL) for what it called “blanket denial” of information and illegal fee demands in response to two RTI applications filed by a policyholder, and has issued show cause notices to both the then CPIO and the present CPIO of the insurer.
In a common order dated 19 November 2025, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari dealt with second appeals filed by appellant Divyank Dixit in Case Nos. CIC/UIICL/A/2024/622015 and CIC/UIICL/A/2024/634674. The matters relate to an online two-wheeler insurance policy issued by UIICL, recovery of No Claim Bonus (NCB), insistence on vehicle inspection, and alleged non-response to emails and legal notices sent by the policyholder. The hearing in both matters was held on 17 November 2025. No one appeared for either the appellant or the insurer despite prior notice, which the Commission expressly noted in the order.
In the first RTI application dated 21 March 2024, Dixit sought several details from UIICL, including date-wise action taken on his emails about the policy, a certified copy of the terms and conditions agreed at the time of booking the policy, the authority or rules under which vehicle inspection was being insisted on after NCB recovery, details of grievance officers and the insurance ombudsman, and copies of endorsement letters issued under his policy.
The CPIO replied on 19 April 2024. Action taken on emails was refused on the ground that it did not fall within “information” under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Copies of the policy terms and endorsement were offered only on payment of Rs 77, which included Rs 50 as “postal charges”. The authority or rules for vehicle inspection were denied under section 8(1)(d), citing commercial confidence. Details of grievance redressal were said to be available on the company website. The First Appellate Authority broadly endorsed this reply.
Dixit challenged these responses in his second appeal, arguing that action taken on his emails clearly fell within the definition of “information”, that postal charges could not be levied over and above the statutory photocopying fee, that government rules could not be withheld as commercially confidential, and that complete details of the grievance officer, Chief Grievance Officer and Ombudsman had still not been disclosed.
The second RTI application, dated 6 June 2024, focused on the same policy but raised fresh queries. Dixit asked for the 11-page soft copy of terms and conditions which, according to an earlier RTI reply, existed on record, the meaning of “NOT APPLICABLE” as used in the insurer’s CPGRAMS replies, the authority or rules under which Rs 499 was taken as NCB recovery without issuing endorsement, the rules permitting inspection of his motorcycle after policy commencement, copies of policies and endorsements, action taken on his legal notices, and the names and designations of officers and staff who handled or altered records relating to his policy.
The CPIO responded on 5 July 2024, attaching a soft copy of policy terms, but rejected most other points as “not information” under section 2(f). For the queries on NCB recovery and vehicle inspection, the CPIO merely referred to earlier intimation about deposit of Rs 499 along with vehicle inspection and pointed to condition no. 3 of the policy. The FAA, by order dated 5 August 2024, repeated this line and maintained that several queries did not qualify as “information”.
In his second appeal in this case, Dixit alleged that the policy copy now produced was a nine-page “duplicate” that did not match the earlier four-page policy he had received, raising doubts about manipulation of records. He also argued that the insurer could not refuse to explain its own use of the phrase “NOT APPLICABLE”, and that the action taken on emails and legal notices was a legitimate subject of RTI.
CIC: CPIO’s denial “deliberate”, extra postal fee “bad in law”
After examining the records, the Commission held that the core grievance of the appellant was justified. It found that the then CPIO, Ms Manpreet Kaur, had issued a blanket, one-line denial of action-taken information by invoking section 2(f), despite the RTI request clearly seeking a report on how his emails had been dealt with. The Commission observed that such information is “well covered” within the statutory definition of information under the RTI Act.
The Commission also took strong exception to the demand for an additional Rs 50 over and above the standard Rs 2 per page for photocopying. Referring to the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, it held that demanding postal charges in this manner is contrary to the Rules and “cannot be permitted”. The order notes that rules and procedures of a public authority ought to be proactively disclosed under section 4(1)(b) of the Act, and fee cannot be charged merely to provide copies of such rules.
In the second case, the Commission described the CPIO’s replies as “vague and incomplete”, failing to deal with each query properly. The non-appearance of the present CPIO at the hearing despite advance notice was “viewed adversely”. The order records that the denial and vague reply by the then CPIO appear “deliberate” and amount to an attempt to “stonewall” the appellant’s right to seek justice in a court of law.
The Commission also remarked that the CPIO should have used the tools provided in the Act, such as section 5(4) (seeking assistance from any other officer) or section 6(3) (transferring the application where needed), instead of “washing their hands off” the request.
In view of these findings, the Commission issued show cause notices to both the then CPIO, Ms Manpreet Kaur, and the present CPIO of UIICL, asking them to explain why action should not be taken against them under sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for obstructing the flow of information. Their written explanations are to reach the Commission within four weeks. The present CPIO has been instructed to serve a copy of the order on the former CPIO and to file a compliance report. If Ms Kaur has retired, the present CPIO must file an affidavit to that effect, with a copy marked to the appellant.
On the information requests themselves, the Commission has directed the present CPIO to issue a revised, updated reply and supply all relevant information on points 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the first RTI application, and on all points of the second RTI application. This information is to be provided free of cost, after obtaining records from the concerned custodians if necessary, using section 5(4) of the Act. Compliance has been mandated within four weeks, and the First Appellate Authority has been told to ensure that these directions are carried out.
The appeal proceedings have been formally disposed of with these directions, but the pending show cause proceedings leave open the possibility of penalty or other action against the officers concerned, depending on their explanations and compliance with the order.
Case Details : Divyank Dixit vs CPIO, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Another
