Central Information Commission
Mr.Hem Prakash vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 July, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/001448
Date of Hearing : July 24, 2012
Date of Decision : July 24, 2012
Parties:
Appellant
Dr. Hem Prakash, H. No. 27,
Street No. 95, Sarojini Park,
Shastri Nagar,
Delhi1110031
The Appellant was not present for the hearing .
Respondents
The PIO
Sushruta Trauma Centre,
Government of NCTm of Delhi
Office of the PIO/Deputy Medical Suptd.,
9, Metcalf Road,
Delhi
Represented by : 1.Dr. Deepak Kumar Singh , CMO
2. Mr. Naresh Kumar Supdt.
3. Dr. Viresh Kumar Head of Office
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/001448
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application with the PIO, Sushruta Trauma Centre on 11111 seeking information related to an Office Order dated 1692011 according to which the requisition forms for CT Scan and Ultra Sonography from the Casualty must be signed by the Senior Resident of the concerned Specialty and later on by the Medical Officer of Casuality Duty, who will countersign these forms.
2. The PIO replied on 8122011 stating that ' The information sought by the applicant is regarding his self observations/ interpretation of the Order issued by the Medical Superintendent and are his grievances against the Head of he Institution. Hence, the same are not covered under the RTI Act".
3. The Appellant then filed his first appeal dated NIL seeking the information once again. The Appellate Authority disposed off the Appeal on 1022012 stating that no further clarification is required since the PIO's reply is adequate. The Appellant thereafter filed his second appeal on 2722012 before the CIC requesting for the complete information.
Decision
4. The Commission reviewed the information sought in the RTI application point wise and noted that in Points (1) and (2) the Appellant is not seeking any information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and is only seeking the opinion of the PIO about the Casualty Medical Officer's as also the Senior Resident Doctor's right to advice any patient with acute trauma. Hence, the Commission holds that no information need be directed to be disclosed since no such information exists in the records. As for point in Point (3), it is noted that the Apparent is seeking information related to a hypothetical situation which he himself has created which, once again, is not available in the records and does not comply with the definition of 'information' as given in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Hence, no information needs to be disclosed against Point No. (3) either.
5. The appeal is disposed off with the above observations and the case directed to be closed.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Dr. Hem Prakash H. No. 27, Street No. 05 Sarojini Park, Shastri Nagar Delhi (East ) 110031.
2. Public Information Officer (RTI) Sushruta Trauma Centre, Government of NCT of Delhi, Office of the PIO/Deputy Medical Superintendent, 9, Metcalf Road, Delhi.
3. Officer incharge, NIC