Central Information Commission
Sushil Kumar vs Office Of The Controller General Of ... on 20 May, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/CGPDT/A/2019/645369
In the matter of:
Sushil Kumar
... Appellant
VS
CPIO & Asst. Controller of Patents
The Patent Office, Boudhik Sampda Bhawan,
CP-2, Sector 5, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700 091
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 22/02/2019 CPIO replied on : 11/03/2019 First appeal filed on : 12/03/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 25/04/2019 - not on record Second Appeal filed on : 12/07/2019 Date of Hearing : 19/05/2021 Date of Decision : 19/05/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Present over phone
Respondent: Jayant Anand, Asstt. Controller of Patents & Designs & CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information with regard to reimbursement of medical claim:
1. Whether separate office permission is required for the investigation carried out with the help of unlisted treatment procedure, if office permission has been obtained for the unlisted treatment procedure.
Provide CGHS guidelines related to the same.
12. Whether the medicine, consultants for anaesthesia or other items used in the unlisted treatment procedure also get reimbursed or not. Provide CGHS guidelines related to the same.
3. Whether FNAC of mediastinal LN using linear E bus is an unlisted treatment procedure or investigation. Provide documents related to the same.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO has provided incomplete and vague information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the reply submitted by the CPIO is false and misleading and has put the applicant in a bad light. In fact, the bill was arbitrarily cleared by the concerned officer without following any CGHS order and office order. Had the CPIO disclosed the relevant office order for the reimbursement of the medical bill under CGHS mentioning the CGHS order and CSMA rule, his queries would have been answered by the CPIO. The CPIO deliberately avoided to cite any CGPDTM order as it would expose the lacunae in his reply. In the official reply of the CPIO, Central govt offices are governed by the CGHS guidelines and CSMA Rules, yet the information regarding the rules sought by the applicant is never disclosed in any of the replies. Office order regarding the delegation of CGHS duties to Mr. Amit Roy was not disclosed. The office order clearly explaining the procedure of the reimbursement of medical bills in the light of the CGHS order and CSMA rules are not disclosed. Mr. Amit Roy was just forwarding authority yet he took the decision by over-stepping his jurisdiction. It must be noted that the Office never provided him the list of claims submitted by the officials after the submission of his claim. This was due to the administrative work in a clandestine way by never following the practice of the first cum first serve principle. Although, the Patent Office, Kolkata is using the e-office for all the office work but still the password, regarding the same to follow up the file, is not provided to the officers. CPIO had not provided any CGHS order or CSMA rule in the absence of which the reply is arbitrary and vague. The CPIO should have provided the CGPTDM order for the reimbursement of the CGHS bill and also the office order of the Patent Office of the Kolkata delegating the powers of the First Appellate authority to the Assistant Administrative officer, who is 2 group B officer. He summed up requesting the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide a copy of the CGPTDM office order regarding the reimbursement of the CGHS bill in the light of CGHS orders and CSMA rules and the Patent office Kolkata order regarding the delegation of the power of the First Appellate authority to the Assistant Administrative officer, who is a group B officer. The app submitted that the process is arbitrary. E-office is of no use as password is not given.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 11.03.2019. He also submitted that the appellant is unnecessarily exhausting the resources of the public authority by raising issues whereas his reimbursement claim was settled as per rule. However, on a query he agreed to provide a revised reply taking into consideration the appellant's contentions above.
Observations:
The Commission observed that the CPIO should be able to provide the CGHS rules and CSMA rules and any other rules of the organization on the basis of which the medical claims are reimbursed in their office. Further the designation of the FAA should be informed to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, and taking into consideration the prevailing lockdown in West Bengal due to COVID, the CPIO is directed to send a revised reply as discussed above via e-mail to the appellant within 3 days from the date of receipt of the order. Further, the CPIO shall send the certified copies as soon as the lockdown is over via speed post.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) Authenticated true copy (अभ माणत स यापत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3