Central Information Commission
Shri.T M Antony vs Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare on 3 February, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003476/17992
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003476
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. T M Antony
R/o: No.33, Aralimara Road,
Suppannapalaya,
Bengaluru- 560033.
Respondent : Dr. B. C. Mohapatra
PIO & Addl. Dy. Director General, CGHS, Room no. 342-A, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 25/05/2011 PIO replied : 21/07/2011 First appeal filed on : 12/08/2011 First Appellate Authority order : Not received. Second Appeal received on : 21/11/2011 Information Sought:
1. What for the certificate from CMO (I/C) of CGHS is insisted upon?
2. What for patients should suffer and strain to get such certificate from the CMO (I/C)?
3. What for certificate of escort is insisted for child patients?
4. What for Half the mileage allowance of actual charge is permitted?
5. What for the details of members of the family with name, relationship, age and sex are furnished in the CGHS card supplied by the Administrative Departments of respective Ministry?
6. What for CGHS monthly subscription is recovered from the monthly salary of the employees covered under CGHS? Is it really meant for the Health & Family Welfare? Government servants under CS (MA) Rules - are not contributing any single pie but reimbursing the medical & other expenses as per CS (MA) Rules - 1944: why such parity is prevailing in between CGHS-Rules and CS(MA) Rules?
7. Why should CGHS Board New Delhi is bothering unnecessarily about the cost of conveyance charges? When the expenditures are to be borne by the respective Department/Ministry?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. I am directed to refer to your RTI Application-dated 25.5.2011 and to inform you that as per existing CGHS rules, there is no provision of Conveyance charges for availing treatment within the city.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was provided to the appellant by the PIO.Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not mentioned.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory Information was provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant: Mr. T M Antony on video conference from NIC-Bengaluru Studio; Respondent: Dr. B. C. Mohapatra, PIO & Addl. Dy. Director General;
The information on records ahs been given to the Appellant. He is contesting a rule which is followed by CGHS of not paying conveyance allowance for treatments and referral services. The Appellant must approach an appropriate forum for this since the PIO has given the information as per available records.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
Information available on the records has been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 03 February 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 2 of 2