Central Information Commission
Mrsatbir Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 November, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000072
Appellant : Shri Satbir Singh
Respondent : Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital
GNCTD, Delhi
Date of hearing : 07112014
Date of decision : 11112014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Sections : Sections 3, 19(3) of the RTI
Act
Result : Appeal allowed/
Disposed of
The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Dr. Sangeeta Basu,
Mr. C.R.Yadav,APIO, Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital, GNCTD, Delhi.
FACTS:
2. The appellant Mr Satbir Singh is father of Anil Kumar, a young man who died in an a motor vehicle accident on 13.7.2013, where two motor vehicles collided in Delhi. Mr Naveen, Mr Vikas, Mr Monu were also injured in this accident. Appellant sought vide RTI application dt 31.8.2013 copy of MLC dt 13.7.2013 in respect of Vikas, Monu, Navin and Anil Kumar; No. of Vans attached with the Hospital and how many Ambulances were in hospital premises on 1 13.7.2013; copy of registration slip of these people and their medical treatment records. The PIO Dr Sangeetha Basu has promptly written to Mr Naveen Mr Vikas and Mr Monu seeking permission to give information sought by appellant about MLC report etc regarding those persons. Mr Naveen wrote back saying he had no objection in giving MLC and other papers. The photocopies of MLC of Navin and Anil, son of appellant were given on 7.10.2013. The CPIO vide reply dt 23.8.2013 claimed the exemption of section 8(1)(j) on point 1 and 3 saying she did not receive any communication from Vikas and Monu. Being aggrieved by the CPIO reply ,the appellant made First appeal on 12.10.2013. FAA vide order dt 9.11.2013 held that the MLC report cannot be provided but direct the CPIO to provide other information like MLC no. police station etc. On noncompliance of the FAA order within the prescribed time and for complete information, the appellant made Second Appeal before the commission. Decision
3. Both the parties made their submissions. The respondent/PIO submitted that they had already provided MLC reports in two cases namely, Anil and Vikas. The reports in other cases are not provided, as the third party has not replied anything to their letter. They, therefore, submitted that in the absence of definite response from the third party, they are not able to take any decision to provide the information. Moreover, these cases are under investigation by the SHO, Jaffarpur PS. The CPIO quoted this Commission's order in file No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000778SA dated 13/6/2014 saying..."every medicolegal report is not a public document. Especially when related to prosecution of criminal charges the disclosure of those documents depend upon several legal provisions. These medicolegal case records are not prepared at the instance of the accused or patient, but were made for the legal requirements of criminal justice system". 2 One option before the Commission is remanding case back to CPIO for fulfilling Section 11 requirement of seeking objections from two injured persons and giving second and third notices to them besides giving them opportunity to go in for first and second appeals. This should have been considered at the First Appellate Authority level. Unfortunately, the first appellate authority Dr Vijay Rai, did not apply mind and concluded on 9.11.2013 that the information sought could not be provided. As more than one year was lapsed, and the process would take long time to complete which might cause serious injury to the public interest in pursuing the action in criminal case and compensation case of the deceased son of the appellant, the Commission thinks that remanding case back to CPIO who did not perform her duty completely under Section 11 would serve no purpose and defeat ends of justice for which the appellant is fighting.
This case being a motor vehicle accident wherein the son of appellant died, and the actions are under way to secure compensation and adjudication on allegations of negligence, the MLC and related record would be highly relevant to the appellantfather of the deceased son. The denial of MLC and other medical record of two injured persons in the same accident who were driving motor vehicle which collided with the other, would be improper and not provided by the RTI Act. Whether Section 8(1)(j) exception will apply to this demand for information about MLC of another person, which is regarded as personal information need to be examined.
The letters dated 3.9.2013 from to three injured persons seeking their objection/permission to provide MLC and other medico legal record pertaining to them, contained a clause "in case, you fail to submit your reply in this regard within stipulated time, it will be presumed that you have no objection to provide the information to the applicant". The time given for reply was 3 seven days from the date of issue of the letter. No response received by the date of hearing i.e., 7.11.2014. The CPIO furnished the information about two injured persons but withheld the MLC papers about other two. The CPIO should have presumed that those two have no objection, should have considered whether information sought could be given and issued notice of her decision to disclose the information as prescribed under Section 11(2) to Section 11(4), without presuming that they had no objection as indicated by absence of response. Mr Navin in his letter of no objection alleged that he suffered injuries because of negligent driving of Mr. Anil Kumar son of the appellant. Since Mr Anil Kumar is deceased the criminal case against him cannot continue. As the 'negligence' or otherwise of other users of vehicle is not known, the investigating officer might have decided to investigate and prosecute the case. In any eventuality the MLC reports and other records assume importance in establishing negligence or otherwise, which will be useful for claiming insurance money by the injured persons and deceased person.
The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority to write to the concerned Investigation Officer/SHO, Jaffarpur saying that the appellant sought the information under RTI Act and being the third party information, the third party has been intimated, who have not replied so far. If the Investigation Officer has no objection, the Department is ready to provide the information to the appellant. The Investigation Officer may be requested to convey his objections, if any, within one week of the receipt of communication. If the respondent authority does not hear anything from the Investigation officer within the prescribed time, the respondent authority shall furnish the desired information to the appellant within one month after writing to the investigation officer. This shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of. 4
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital, O/o Medical Superintendent, Jaffarpur, New Delhi
2. Shri Satbir Singh Village: Jhul Jhuli Near Malkhan House, TV Tower, POGhuman Hera, New Delhi110073 5