Monday, February 19, 2018


                                      Guidance Note
            Large number of bank retirees are having doubt if dental surgery/treatment performed / taken in a private dental clinic [not hospital] under day care is covered by IBA Group Insurance Policy or not. In most of cases such claims are denied by TPA/Insurance Co as treatment is not taken in a hospital. My humble opinion is that such claims are payable even if treatment/surgery is taken/performed in a private dental clinic, subject to following conditions, based on clauses 2.9, 2.10 and 3.3 of insurance policy:
01. Treatment /surgery should be administered/performed by a qualified and registered doctor [say BDS/MDS etc]
02 Clinic should be registered with local municipal authorities, wherever it is legally required to register.
03. It could be a department of a registered hospital rather than stand alone facility/unit.
04. It should have qualified nurses.
05. In-charge of Unit should be qualified in dentistry [say BDS/MDS].
06. Unit should have fully equipped operation theatre of its own where surgical procedure is carried out.
07. Unit should maintain daily record of patients which should be made accessible to Insurance Co staff.
08. Medical treatment and surgical procedures are covered.
09. Treatment/procedure should be done with local or general anesthesia.
10. Treatment/procedure should be done in a dental clinic or day care centre. Dental clinics are treated as day care centre in my opinion.
11. Treatment/procedure may require less than 24 hours due to technological advancements in medical treatment of diseases. Hence visits for treatment/procedure for few hours per day on various different days should be covered.
12. But for technological advancements, the treatment/procedure/surgery would have required hospitalization of more than a day.
13. Treatment taken as OPD patient will not generally be covered.
14. List of treatment/procedure at clause No. 7 of insurance policy covers dental surgery.
15. It is advisable to obtain attached certificate along with Form-B of claim form, self attested photocopy of treating doctor’s final degree certificate and municipal registration license of day care centre/clinic, whenever dental treatment is taken in a private dental clinic as day care patient.
[Compiled for guidance of bank retirees by J P Shah, RTI & Consumer Activist]
Blog:                                                                    12022018

Format of certificate…………….

                                    This is to certify that following patient has undergone dental treatment/surgical procedure in this clinic /day care centre for his dental disease:
Name of patient:                                                              Gender & Age of patient:
Address of patient:                                                           Patient No:
Particulars of disease:
Details of treatment /procedure:
Period of treatment / procedure:
Dates of visits to dental clinic/centre             Arrival Time                Period [in hours]
Total amount charged as per details in bill: Rs.__________
Treatment / procedure was administered/performed by a doctor qualified in dentistry, assisted by qualified nurses, under local anesthesia. He was day care patient for this day care centre/clinic and NOT out door patient.  This centre/clinic is registered with municipal authorities.
Rubber stamp:                                                                        SIGNATURE OF TREATING DOCTOR
Date:                                                                           Qualifications:
Countersign:                                                                Registration No:                     

In-charge Doctor of day care centre / clinic [if not treating doctor]

Saturday, December 09, 2017


Central Information Commission has declared Indian Bank Association [IBA] as a public authority under RTI Act, vide its two orders No. CIC/MP/C/2015/000044 AND CIC/MP/C/2016/000103 both dated 13-11-2017. This is a landmark decision and unless there is stay order from Court, one can seek information from IBA under RTI Act 2005.

I am happy that I was closely associated with the complaint to CIC of Mrs Ita Bose of Lucknow along with other like-minded RTI activists. It was a herculean task of nearly 3 years by our team to collect information from various public sector banks and Ministry of Finance and from other sources, to prove that IBA is a public authority under RTI Act. 

In all probability, these orders will be challenged in High Court and stay order would be prayed. 

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Collection of information by public authority from private entity

Collection of information by public authority from private entity

Section 2f of RTI Act 2005-Information of private entities [to which RTI Act is not directly applicable] to be provided by public authorities/Regulators which control such private entities. There are two contradictory judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. However later in date judgment should be effective.

Some regulators especially RBI is quoting judgment dated      09-11-2011 to deny collection and supply of information held by a private entity. Subsequent judgement dated 07-10-2013 is bypassed as it is pro-information seeker.

I am appending verbatim relevant paragraphs of two judgements and source of these paragraphs. Please make use of judgment dated 07-10-2013 in first or second appeal or as a note in RTI application itself.

File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000389+000421+000692/5281
Date of Decision: 06 June 2014
Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra v/s Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

EXTRACT from following judgement dated 07-10-2013 in case of CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9017 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.24290 of 2012):

“Hon’ble Supreme Court in its subsequent decision dated 07.10.2013 in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others versus State of Kerala, relevant extracts whereof are as hereunder:

“52. Registrar of Cooperative Societies functioning under the Cooperative Societies Act is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act. As a public authority, Registrar of Co-operatives Societies has been conferred with lot of statutory powers under the respective Act under which he is functioning. He is also duty bound to comply with the obligations under the RTI Act and furnish information to a citizen under the RTI Act. Information which he is expected to provide is the information enumerated in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act subject to the limitations
provided under Section 8 of the Act…………………………………………
Consequently, apart from the information as is available to him, under Section 2(f), he can also gather that information from the Society, to the extent permitted by law. Registrar is also not obliged to disclose those information if those information fall under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
……………………… But the demand should have statutory backing”



The Supreme Court in CBSE vs. AdityaBandopadhyay, (2011)
SCC 497, [ decided on 09-08-2011 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011[Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009]]  has held as under:-
63. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of “information” and “right to information” under clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide “advice” or “opinion” to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any “opinion” or “advice” to an applicant. The reference to “opinion” or “advice” in the definition of “information” in Section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”

Note: Please refer my article “Private Party under RTI” in my blog www. at


Friday, July 07, 2017


I am happy to note that after filing RTI to know status of above issue with RBI and addressing letter dated 29-06-2017 to Dy. Governor RBI with copy to Ministry of Fiance, Dept of Financial Services [which is uploaded on this blog], RBI has  issued operative circular dated 06-07-2017 and is uploaded on its website at:

Citizens have to be alert and chase patiently govt, its department and regulators for sensitizing.

Thursday, June 29, 2017


Date: 29-06-2017                                                                             By Email

Dy. Governor,
Reserve Bank of India
Shahid Bhagat Singh Rd,
Ford, Mumbai 400001

Respected Sir,

Subject: Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised
Electronnic Banking Transaction.

I thank RBI for initiating various steps to protect common customers and ensuring fair treatment to them. However of late I feel process is slowed down to the detriment of common Indian who is now forced to resort to digital banking, with no cover for his protection. Even frauds above Rs.10000 up to Rs.100000/- have been absolved from police complaint/FIR by bank branches, vide CVC circular No. 06/06/17 dated 14-06-2017, if staff is not involved.

RBI had issued draft circular No DBR. No.Leg.BC/09.07.0005/2016-17 dated        11-08-2016 for public consultation. Due to digital India initiative of Central Govt and in absence of proper education in digital banking, such frauds have multiplied many folds, specially against house wives, senior citizens, villagers, illiterate or semi literate citizens and those who are not tech-savvy. Lack of protection umbrella to said strata of population will have serious consequences for middle and lower class which may ultimately puncture digital initiative.

Hence above initiative is need of the hour. However though draft circular was issued in Aug 2016, policy and operative circulars have not been issued by RBI. Vide my enclosed RTI application and its reply, it is clear that RBI is still in process of finalizing the issue. Such delay has already caused financial loss in crores to common citizens and digital frauds in banks are multiplying at alarming rate. I am enclosing two paper cuttings  just for your reference. In addition, I know net banking frauds of nearly 80.00 lakhs committed in Rajkot and for Rs.78.00 lakhs in Vadodara [this fraud is reported in Gujarati news papers yesterday and also today]

This inordinate delay in issuing policy and operative circular is causing immense tension in using digital banking despite near-compulsory mandate of Govt. for digital financial transactions. I have guided many citizens who lost money due to digital frauds. My experience with Banks had been horrible.

I humbly urge to expedite the matter and ensure that system is put in place so that liability of customers for unauthorized electronic banking transactions is reduced to zero.

Thanking you

Yours faithfully,

J P Shah
Encls: a/a

Copy by email to: Addl Secretary [Banking],
 Dept of Financial Services, MoF, New Delhi

–with a request to sensitize RBI for urgent action