Central Information Commission
Praveen Singhal 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
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SFHND/A/2019/139295
Shri Praveen Singhal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
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 appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.06.2019
PIO replied on : 24.06.2019
First Appeal filed on : 01.07.2019
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 14.08.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2019 seeking details of MLC No. 00545111 dated 16th February 2019 of Shri Ravinder Goyal and its status, details of all test that had been done and its reports and other related information.
The CPIO-I, RTI Cell Safdarjang Hospital & VMMC vide letter dated 24.06.2019 replied as under:-
"Applicant may be asked to submit photocopy of Safdarjung HospitalCausality Slip with all details for further reply in the matter."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2019 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 1 of 3Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated nil wherein he inter alia stated that the original MLC dated 16.02.2019 has been tampered with and FIR was filed against him resulting in devaluation of his social image and respect. Hence he had asked the information regarding the copy of the documents which contained information on the treatment of Shri Ravinder Goyal, etc. 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 Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He reiterated his written submission dated nil wherein he inter alia stated that the original MLC dated 16.02.2019 has been tampered with and an FIR was filed against him resulting in devaluation of his social image and respect. Hence he had asked the information regarding the copy of the documents which contained information on treatment of Shri Ravinder Goyal, etc. The Respondent represented by Shri Sandeep Sharma, CPIO participated in the hearing through audio conference. While reiterating the reply of the CPIO, he stated that the first appeal was also decided wherein the information was denied u/s 8 (1) (e) since the same was third party information held by the public authority in a fiduciary capacity. In addition, he clarified that the nature of injury was given in the second MLC of Shri Rajinder Goyal which should be considered as the final finding.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, 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 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.Page 2 of 3
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 abov ementioned observations, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeal which is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य 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