Central Information Commission
Kewal Kishan vs Safdarjung Hospital,New Delhi on 3 September, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/SFHND/C/2020/105030
Shri Kewal Kishan िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Safdarjung Hospital
Date of Hearing : 02.09.2021
Date of Decision : 03.09.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 24.12.2019
PIO replied on : 08.01.2020
First Appeal filed on : -
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 30.01.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 24.12.2019 seeking information on 02 points:-
The CPIO-I, RTI Cell, Safdarjung Hospital and VMCC vide letter dated 08.01.2020 provided one page of information to the Complainant wherein it was mentioned that the Complainant can contact the IO of the concerned police station to obtain Page 1 of 3 the copy of the MLC. Dissatisfied by the response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO, RTI Cell, Safdarjung Hospital and VMCC vide letter dated 27.08.2021 wherein it was stated that the Complainant had also filed a first appeal dated 28.01.2020 and reply sent by the DPIO vide letter dated 07.02.2020 was sent to the Complainant. The hospital policy on the matter prepared after a decision of the Commission regarding MLCs and a revised response of the DPIO was enclosed with the written submission.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The telephone calls made to the Appellant during the hearing were responded by his sister who stated that the Appellant was not available to appear for the hearing.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sandeep Sharma, CPIO participated in the hearing through audio conference. He reiterated his written submission dated 27.08.2021 and stated that in compliance with the decision of the Commission in CIC/SFHND/A/2017/100890 decided on 03.08.2017, the MLCs were exempted from disclosure by the doctor/ hospital as per Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further emphasised that as per the revised response provided by the custodian of information, no MLCs were found to be prepared in the name of the Appellant for the period mentioned in the RTI application.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Moreover, detailed observations on various aspects of MLC reports and its disclosure as per the RTI Act, 2005 has been examined in detail by the Commission in CIC/SFHND/A/2017/100890 decided on 03.08.2017, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"The moot question, thus, is whether the accused or complainant has an absolute & unqualified right to receive a copy of MLC reports of self or each other? The irresistible answer that flows from the reading of aforesaid provisions is NO. MLC report is a part of evidence which forms part of report under Section 173 CrPC. Section 173(6) gives discretion to the Police officer to request Magistrate for redaction of any part of final report. Also the expression occurring in Section 173(7) 'finds it convenient so to do' leaves no Page 2 of 3 room for doubt that the Investigation officer is not under an absolute obligation to furnish the report under Section 173 to the accused before the Magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence on the basis thereof.
Thus, the Commission finds that the MLC report is a classified document which cannot be made public before the stage of preparation and acceptance of final report under Section 173 CrPC. Generally, in hands of the Investigation officer or Police, the MLC report shall remain exempt from disclosure till stage of filing of report u/s 173 CrPC under clauses (g) & (h) of Section 8 the RTI Act if the considerations stipulated in the respective clauses are met.
After the MLC records are transmitted to Police by Doctor/Hospital, the former becomes the custodian of information for the purposes of RTI Act. Even if, a copy of the MLC record is retained with the Doctor/ Hospital, the same does not render the Hospital a custodian of record. The MLC records so prepared are akin to a professional advice tendered by the medical professional under a relation of trust with Police/ investigative agency. The record is thus retained by the Hospital/ Doctor in fiduciary capacity. It is further settled position of law that what cannot be achieved directly cannot be secured indirectly. Thus, in hands of the Doctor/ Hospital, MLC records remain exempt per se under clause (e) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act unless larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information."
In the light of the abovementioned observations, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant complaint which is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3