Central Information Commission
Drmrs Kamlesh Kumari vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 July, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/YA/A/2015/000569SA
Kamlesh Kumari v. PIO, Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. S. K. Hospital
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 23.09.2014 FAA: 24.10.2014 SA: 19.12.2014
Hearing: 21.07.2015 Decision: 30072015
Result: Posted for compliance & penalty proceedings on 27th August, 2015, at
2.30 pm.
Parties Present:
1. Appellant is present. Dr. Manju Puri, Director Prof., Mr. Pooran Mal, PIO and Mr. Prem
Chand, Admn Offier represent Public authority.
FACTS:
2. Appellant through his RTI application sought following information:
a) How many complaints against Dr. Pikee Saxena, Prof. of Obstt. & Gynae is received?
b) Name of Obstt. & Gynae Doctor & Anesthetist who has done C/S of Mrs. Preeti, w/o
Mukesh Kumar on 20.10.2013.
c) What action Administration has taken against mentioned in my complaint?
d) What corrective measures/steps has been taken after this complaint so that such type
of negligence can be avoided in other cases?
e) Who is responsible for maintenance & proper functioning of cautry in the OT during
operation?
f) Kindly provide the list of patient along with their contact No. & residential address who
has been operated by Dr. Pikee Saxena during the month of Sept. & Oct. 2013. Name
the sutures she has used during the C/S. How many patient got cautry burn & how
many incisional hernia, wound gap after the cesarean section?
As no reply received from PIO & FAA, appellant approached the Commission.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
3. Appellant Dr Kamlesh Kumari stated that her sister was brought with complaint of non
movement of fetus, to the Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. S. K. Hospital requiring
immediate delivery. She alleged delay from 6 am to 11.30 am, which necessitated artificial
aspiratory assistance to new born child. Besides, mother suffered cautry burn on her back,
which reflected in photos.
4. PIO & ProfessorDirector Dr. Manju Puri, OBS & Gynae explained that the injury could
have also resulted from the quality of chemical used, equipment or quality of medicines.
Appellant intervened to say that along with her sister, two other cases for cautry burn also
reported. Dr Manju Puri quoted the concerned doctor saying, it was not cautry burn, but burn
caused by betadiene.
5. Along with RTI application, Rs 10/ is paid by an IPO without writing name of
addressee, so that PIO could fill the required name. But the PIO used it as the excuse to delay
the information. The PIO spent Rs. 30/ plus demanding remaking of the IPO with proper
name, instead of left blank filling with their name. Dr Kamlesh Kumari filed another RTI with
fresh IPO, still complete information was not given.
6. Public authority has three PIOs, each with Administration, Hospital and Department of
OBS & Gynae. They were forwarding the RTI application from one to another instead of
furnishing information. Dr. Manju Puri replied to the points raised by appellant, as follows:
Information soughtGiven
1. How many complaints against Dr. Except this, there was none. Pikee Saxena, Prof. of Obstt. & Gynae is received?
2. Name of Obstt. & Gynae Doctor & Name of anesthesia is claimed as confidential Anesthetist who has done C/S of Mrs. and secret. Preeti W/o Mukesh Kumar on 20.10.2013.
3. What action Administration has taken Inquiry is still going on. against mentioned in my complaint?
4. What corrective measures/steps has Departmental enquiry conducted and taken been taken after this complaint so that corrective measures. such type of negligence can be avoided in other cases?
5. Who is responsible for maintenance & OT technician is responsible for maintaining proper functioning of cautry in the OT of proper function. Information about other during operation? patients cannot be given because it is third party information.
6. Kindly provide the list of patient along They do not maintain separate record about with their contact No. & residential injuries, which is part of case records. It is address who has been operated by Dr. difficult to extract from thousands of case Pikee Saxena during the month of sheets.
Sept. & Oct. 2013. Name the sutures she has used during the C/S. How many patient got cautry burn & how many incisional hernia, wound gap after the cesarean section?
7. After hearing elaborate submissions, the Commission finds:
a) The PIOs have unnecessarily delayed giving information about action taken on her complaint.
b) The authorities neither responded to complaints nor to RTI Applications in time.
c) Returning of IPO and transferring the RTI request to other PIOs are deliberate attempts to delay and deny the information.
d) Claiming confidentiality to the name of the anesthesianist is illegal. The names and designations, duties of the Doctors should be disclosed under Section 4(1)(b) voluntarily. The authorities of hospital have to officially notify and display the names of the doctors and their specializations. Patients and their kith-nkin have right to know the names of the doctors, surgeons anesthesianists who treated. It is not their personal information of doctors and not exempted under any provision of RTI Act.
e) The inquiry is pending for more than one year, since December 2013. The PIOs did not produce any document to support their claim of pendency of inquiry. This delay is highly unreasonable and it defies accountability.
f) It is not proper to claim secrecy over information about number of patients who suffered injuries during a particular period and the names of doctors who treated them.
8. However, the PIO promised the Commission to maintain hereafter, the record of patients who suffered injuries or facing other problems. However Dr. Manju Puri tried to justify the actions of Dr. Pinkee Saxena against whom the appellant complained. PIO said that Dr. Saxena attended on the request of appellant Dr. Kamlesh Kumari, who was Additional Medical Superintendent of hospital. Appellant rushed to add that along with her another Additional Medical Superintendent also invited Dr. Pinkee Saxena.
9. It is the duty of the respondent public authority to respond to complaint filed by the sister of the patient who suffered injuries during delivery within reasonable time. The RTI Act provided much needed right to know action taken on complaint, because the authorities either sit over the complaints or hide them under the carpet. Under RTI, the authorities have to answer within 30 days truthfully about the status of complaint. With RTI Act empowering citizen with the authority to question, the authorities can no longer arbitrarily hush up inquiries. The Commission thus directs:
a) the hospital authority to complete inquiry giving opportunity to the concerned Doctors, appellant and the patient,
b) inform the appellant & this Commission when such inquiry would be completed and action would be intimated,
c) directs the respondent authority to inform the number of patients who suffered injuries during one week of treatment during the duty hours of Dr Pikee Saxena about caultry burn injuries, incision hernia etc.,
d) directs the three PIOs to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against them for illegally delaying the factual information, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. The Commission posts this case for compliance and penalty proceedings to 27th August, 2015, at 2.30 pm, on which the PIO shall be present with relevant files.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. S K Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi (RTI Branch).
2. Dr. Kamlesh Kumari, 2/11B (First Floor), JangpuraA, New Delhi110014.