Central Information Commission
Mr.D K Soni vs Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare on 19 October, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/000964
Date of Decision :October 19 , 2010
Name of the Applicant : Mr. D K Soni
Name of the Public Authority : Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dated 04.04.2009 seeking various information about Dr. Jayram Iyer Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur relating to the total number of angioplasty surgeries and angiographies conducted between the year 2001 and 2009 alongwith the names of the patients; the number, name and address of the employees of SECL who underwent the angioplasty surgeries and angiography during 2001 to 2009 as against the total number of patients other than SECL employees who underwent the same treatment; list of total successful and unsuccessful angioplastic surgeries and angiographies conducted at the concerned hospital between 2001 to 2009; copy of the audit report indicating the total sum of money accumulated by the conduct of such operations; number of Reopro Injunction used by the said hospital during 2001 to 2009 and name and address/es of the total number of patients on whom it was used and so on. The CEO of the Apollo hospital denied the information by the letter dated 10.04.2009 stating that the management of the Respondent hospital did not fall within the purview of the RTI Act 2005 .
2. Being aggrieved by the response of the Respondent, the Applicant filed a First Appeal on 28.05.2009 reiterating the contents of the RTI application. The Appellant alleged that the information sought had been deliberately denied to him in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, in order to conceal the financial irregularities with respect to some patients from whom large sums of money had been charged without providing adequate and proper treatment facilities to them. The Appellate Authority responded by their letter dated 10.06.2009 reiterating their earlier contention that Apollo hospital being a privately owned organisation did not fall within the ambit and jurisdiction of the RTI Act 2005.
3. Being thus constantly denied information by the Respondent hospital, the Appellant preferred the instant Second Appeal on 19.06.2009 before the Central Information Commission, seeking redressal of his grievances while reiterating the entire sequence of events leading to the filing of the instant Appeal. The Appellant herein placed reliance on the provisions of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005 to substantiate his arguments. The Appellant also alleged that despite being an Institute run by SECL, which is a Public authority, the Apollo Hospital had denied information in order to conceal some corrupt and improper practices.
4. The Bench sent a letter dated 24.08.2009 to the Director, Apollo Hospital inviting their comments about the Government grants received by the organization since inception, position of acquisition of land and building and the rules/regulations, details of Board of directors etc. pertaining to the Respondent organization. In response to the said letter, the Respondent did not respond, however the Appellant sent a communication dated 15.09.2009 annexing therewith a letter dated 12.02.2008 whereby Advocate Sh. Jayant K Rao had been provided information relating to the details of staff employed by the same Respondent hospital under provisions of the RTI Act affirming that the Respondent did fall within the ambit of the RTI Act. The Appellant further stated in the said letter dated 15.09.2009 that the Respondent having provided information to one information seeker under provisions of the Act, could not have subsequently chosen to deny information to another information seeker, viz. the Appellant. This was followed by another communication dated 25.11.2009 sent by the Appellant in order to reiterate his earlier contentions and praying for speedy disposal of the case.
5. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for March 09, 2010 and a notice in this regard was sent to the parties on 16.02.2010.
5. Mr. N L Soni, Advocate; Mr. Rajendra Soni, Advocate and Mr. Kuldeep Chaturvedi, AGM (HR) represented the Public Authority.
6. The Appellant was present in person alongwith Mr. C Jayant K Rao, Advocate during the hearing. Hearing
7. The Respondent Hospital placed on record their written submissions alongwith a copy of the License Agreement signed in Kolkata and executed between the Apollo Hospital and the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. [SECL] on 19.03.2001; a copy of Memorandum of Association of the Apollo Hospital Enterprises Limited dated 30.11.1979 and the Certificate of Commencement of Business. The primary contention of the Respondent as submitted in the written submission was that the Apollo Hospitals, Bilaspur is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and did not receive any grants, indirectly or directly, either from the Central or State Government since the date of its inception. The Respondent clarified that they generate their own resources and accordingly did not fall within the definition of "Public Authority" as contained in the Section 2(h) of the RTI Act 2005. The position with respect to the land and building was clarified stating that the same had been provided by the SECL, which is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. By way of the License Agreement executed between SECL and the Apollo hospitals, the lands were licensed to the Respondent hospital. The Respondent further submitted the Memorandum of Association of the Apollo Hospital Enterprises Limited dated 30.11.1979 and the Certificate of Commencement of Business while corroborating that the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur is a sister concern of the Apollo Hospital Enterprises Limited and the same are governed by the Rules/Regulations as enunciated in the aforementioned documents of incorporation of the company. The Respondent submitted another written communication reconfirming the fact that the Apollo Hospital was neither owned, nor controlled or funded by the Central or State Government, any Governmental agency or even the appropriate government. Further hearing of the matter was adjourned at this stage adjourned in order to seek more details regarding control and involvement of SECL.
8. Subsequently, the Commission issued a communication dated 17.03.2010 seeking comments from the Respondent on various issues determining the control and involvement of the SECL with the running, administration and management of the Apollo hospital.
9. In response to the said letter dated 17.03.2010 issued by the Commission, the Commission received comments from both the parties duly supported by documents. The Appellant filed his submissions dated 16.03.2010 seeking time to submit appropriate and relevant documents, upon procuring the same from other Governmental agencies, in order to prove that the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur falls within the ambit of the RTI Act in the capacity of a Public Authority. The Respondent Hospital provided their detailed undated written submissions admitting that the Land and building had been provided by the SECL under the License agreement and the Apollo hospital, in the capacity of the Licensee is liable to pay a share in profits to the SECL, for the period of 30 years, as stipulated in the License Agreement. The amounts paid over the period of time have been also detailed in the submission. In so far as the conduct of its business, transport of medicines, medical and lab equipments, furniture as also the recruitment of employees and Doctors, liability of payment of salaries to the staff and Doctors etc are concerned, the Respondent submitted that it was the sole responsibility of the Apollo Hospital and SECL had no role to play in the same. The Respondent also submitted that they were empanelled with SECL as per the terms of the License Agreement, but the Respondent did not get any benefit from the Licensor outside the License Agreement. The terms of the License Agreement themselves stipulated that the employees of the SECL would be provided treatment at discounted rates, and the Licensor SECL on its part would advance a sum of Rs. One crore annually against suitable bank guarantee towards the medical services to be provided to employees of SECL. The Respondent categorically and specifically emphasised that SECL had no control, authority nor access to the information relating to the Apollo Hospital, except as stipulated in terms of the commercial contracts in normal course. The running, functioning, administrative and financial matters of the Apollo Hospital was the sole domain of the Hospital itself with no control of the SECL in this regard. The Board of Directors have been named in the Memorandum of Association and pointed out accordingly by the Respondent. Records indicate two letters dated 25.02.2010 and 18.05.2010 from the State Department of Health and Family Welfare wherein the Respondent is enlisted as a Private Hospital. The letter of 18.05.2010 in fact clarifies that the Hospital though recognized for the health care facilities to be provided to the Government employees, did not have any agreement at the Administrative level. A letter dated 27.02.2010 from the PIO, SECL is also found on record whereby it has been clearly submitted that " the Apollo Hospital was initially built by SECL and given on Thirty years lease to Apollo Hospital in respect of Land & Building to set up a MultiSpeciality Hospital at Bilaspur and for that License Agreement has been signed between SECL and Apollo Hospital......As per the agreement clause SECL has got no financial liability and/or administrative control over Apollo Hospital....Apollo Hospital is paying SECL profit sharing amount and figures of profit sharing for past 3 years is given below ...:
200607 Rs. 92,18,455/
200708 Rs. 81,41,621/
200809 Rs. 72,34,828/
This was followed by yet another letter dated 27.07.2010 from the Appellant reiterating his request seeking information.
11. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled another hearing on August, 6th 2010 which was postponed to 27.09.2010 due to the request of the Respondent through his counsel and a notice in this regard was sent to the parties on 11.08.2010.
12. Mr. N L Soni, Advocate represented the Respondent.
13. The Appellant was present in person alongwith Mr. C Jayant K Rao, Advocate during the hearing. Decision
14. During the hearing the parties reiterated their respective contentions. Perusal of the various documents placed on record, by the Commission once again reveals that the Respondent Hospital indeed has been 1) profit sharing with SECL acting in the capacities as Licensor and Licensee; 2) returning part of their income to SECL as detailed hereinabove; 3) providing discounted treatment given by Apollo Hospital to SECL's employees as another mode of repayment; 4) functioning, running, administration of the Multi Speciality Hospital completely independently done by Licensee viz. Apollo Hospital Management as per terms of License Agreement; 5) as in any regular commercial contract, interest for default/delayed payments stipulated clearly within the License Agreement; 6) consideration clause clearly stipulated in the License Agreement, so the chance of any grant/subsidy from Licensor to Licensee is completely negated; 7) License Agreement with respect to the Land and Building clearly lays down that the Licensor grants the land and building (premises) on Thirty year lease in lieu of License fee and other considerations; 8) no member of SECL on Board of Directors, and also the letter dated 27.02.2010 clearly admitting that there is no control of SECL on Apollo Hospital; 9) No grant/subsidy and even the Rs. 1 crore annual advance by SECL is against medical facilities to be provided to SECL employees by Apollo Hospital, 10) created under Companies Act and governed by its own Memorandum of Association by its own Board of Directors, no outside control. The relation subsisting between SECL and the Apollo Hospital is purely commercial in nature and there is no evidence of SECL's patronage on the Respondent Hospital. In fact application of all the parameters as laid down in various decisions with respect to what can constitute "Public Authority" indicate that the Respondent Hospital does not fulfill any of the criteria as enunciated in the Section 2(h) of the RTI Act 2005, defining the "Public Authority". While the Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005 reads as follows:
".......(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted--
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any--
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) nonGovernment organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
None of the aforementioned criteria are fulfilled by the Apollo Hospital in order for it to be termed/categorized as a Public Authority, as discussed above.
15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission observes that the documents/information and records of the case very clearly indicate that the Respondent Hospital is not a Public Authority.
16. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Reserved in the hearing, this Decision is announced in open chambers on this the 19th of October, 2010.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
Mr. D.K. Soni Advocate Nawapara Near Mishra Atta Chakki Ambikapur ASurguja (C.G.) Dr. V.R. Ranabab CEO Cum Director, Medical Services Appolo Hospital Bilaspur Chhatisgarh PIO South Eastern Coal Fields Limited SECL Bhavan Seepat Road , Post Box no. 90 Bilaspur - 495006(C.G.)