SLIC withdraws court case; complies with RTI Commission ruling

The first appeal by a public authority against a Right to Information ( RTI) Commission order calling upon the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation ( SLIC) to disclose details of an insurance claim to a cancer patient has been withdrawn in the Court of Appeal.

This came after the SLIC's senior counsel said he advised his client to comply with the Commission ruling.

The information request was filed by ad oct or,VY Sabaratnam, to SLIC in December 2017, alleging that his claim was falsely denied and/ or delayed. Using the RTI Act, he sought details of persons who made decisions on his claim, if a medical team or doctor was involved, their names, designations and qualifications as well as certified copies of relevant decision-making documents.

The SLIC refused to release the information and the patient appealed to the Commission in January last year. Several hearings were held.

In October the same year, the Commission directed the SLIC to give the information, observing that the SLIC’s argument that the claim might be taken up in future before a court of law and that, therefore, the information could not be released was not valid under the RTI Act.

It was pointed out that the panel which decided on the patient’s claim was a panel of the Insurance Corporation and that relevant details of the decision made on the claim should be given to the claimant.

Previously, in May, the Commission held that: “The Public Authority’s argument that the matter relates to a potential dispute which may go to court is not a valid exemption to deny information to an information requestor.”

It said Section 5(1) of the RTI Act No 12 of 2016 provides for specific exemptions and sub judice or a pending court case itself is not one of these exemptions. “Consequently, the likelihood of a court case arising in the future cannot be construed as a valid exemption to deny information on an information request submitted under the Act,” it held.

Section 5(1) defines the grounds on which a request for information may be denied.

Senior Counsel S. A. Parathalingam, PC, appearing for SLIC, informed the Court of Appeal that his client would provide the information as requested “in pursuance of the right conferred upon citizens in terms of the RTI Act read with the Constitution.”

The Court then allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. The RTI applicant, Dr Sabaratnam, appeared in person.