Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ashok Kumar Sharma vs North Central Railway on 28 April, 2026

                                के ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/NCRAL/A/2024/642421

Ashok Kumar Sharma                                         .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
C.P.I.O,
Office of the Chief Medical Superintendent,
Divisional Railway Hospital,
North Central Railway,
Railway Officers Colony,
Jhansi - 284003                                            .... ितवादी/Respondent

Date of Hearing                      :    28-04-2026
Date of Decision                     :    28-04-2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                   Swagat Das

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

 RTI application filed on                :    24-07-2024
 CPIO replied on                         :    24-08-2024
 First appeal filed on                   :    30-08-2024
 First Appellate Authority's order       :    10-09-2024
 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated              :    24-09-2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24-07-2024 seeking the following information:

"1. My son Anurag Sharma was being under treatment in IOD from 13/04/2023 in DRH/jhs. not what medical grounds he is made fit for duty and discharged on 24/07/2024.

2. Plz provide medical finding on basis is forcibly made fit despite having difficulty in moving and performing is duty still.

3. Dr S S Nayak (sr dmo/ pryj) on his opinion dated 03/01/2024 advised for light job and medical board constitution to decide his fitness, whether any board made as of now if so than give this boards recommendations.

4. Whether CMS/jhs. has given his written opinion/approval after visual checking patient condition before made him fit for duty."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24-08-2024 stating as under:

"उपरो िवषय के संदभ म आपके ारा आवेदन प िदनां क 27.07.2024 के मद सं. एक से 04 तक म मांगी गयी जानकारी तीसर प से स त है अतः जन सूचना अिधकार अिधिनयम के अनुसार उ जानकारी नही दी जा सकती ।"

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30-08-2024. The F.A.A vide order dated 10-09-2024 stating as under:

"उपरो िवषयांतगत आपकी अपील का िन ारण मु िचिक ा अधी क झांसी को ेिषत प ांकः -पी/184/आरटीआई/24/355 िदनांक 10.09.2024 के मा म से िकया गया है । जोिक आपके सूचनाथ हे तु इस प के साथ संल है ।

संल प इस कार है :- आवेदक ने मूल आरटीआई म 04 मदों म ी अनुराग शमा व र. एएलपी / झां सी के मेिडकल िफट करने से स ंिधत जानकारी मांगी है। इसके स ंध म मु िचिक ा अधी. झांसी ारा सूचना उपल करायी गयी है िक जानकारी तीसरे प से स ंिधत है इसिलये नहीं दी जा सकती है । आवेदक ारा अवगत कराया है िक ी अनु राग शमा इनके पु है एवं इनसे आरटीआई की धारा 11 (1) तहत सहमित नहीं ली गयी है । इसके िलये आवेदक का आवेदन मु िचिक ा अधी. झांसी को भेजा जा रहा है । मु िचिक ा अधी. झांसी उ स ंिधत कमचारी से उसकी गत जानकारी आवेदक को उपल कराने हे तु सहमित प की मां ग कर उसके अनुसार जानकारी आवेदक को उपल कराय।"

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kumar, Senior Divisional Medical Officer & authorized representative of the PIO present through Video-Conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 24.09.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.

6. The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to a third party and, accordingly, the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 were invoked. A notice was issued to the concerned third party seeking his consent for disclosure; however, no response was received within the stipulated time. Subsequently, the said third party independently filed an RTI application seeking the same information, upon which the complete information was duly furnished to him in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.

Decision:

7. The Commission has carefully considered the records of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent during the hearing.

8. At the outset, it is observed that the information sought in the RTI application pertains to the medical records of a third party, namely the Appellant's son. Such information is inherently personal in nature and qualifies as "third party information" under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The PIO, therefore, rightly invoked the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the RTI Act and sought consent from the concerned third party before disclosure. It is noted that no response was received from the third party within the stipulated time. In such circumstances, and considering the sensitive nature of medical information, the denial of information by the PIO cannot be said to be unjustified.

9. Further, the Commission takes note of the Respondent's submission that the concerned third party subsequently filed an independent RTI application and the requested information was duly furnished to him. This demonstrates that the Respondent has acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.

10. In view of the above, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no intervention is warranted in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011 - 2610 7040 Date Copy To:

The First Appellate Authority, Office of the Chief Medical Superintendent, Divisional Railway Hospital, North Central Railway, Railway Officers Colony, Jhansi - 284003 Ashok Kumar Sharma CIC/SORLY/A/2024/128389 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)