Central Information Commission
Dr Praveen Singh vs Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital on 27 February, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/RGSSH/A/2022/635002/634132 -UM
Dr Praveen Singh
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
THE PIO/Nodal Officer(RTI Cell)
RAJIV GANDHI SUPER SPECIALTY HOSPITAL,
GNCTD, TAHIRPUR, DELHI-110093
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.02.2023
Date of Decision : 27.02.2023
Date of RTI application 28.03.2022
CPIO's response 04.05.2022
Date of the First Appeal 02.05.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 06.06.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
Page 1 of 4The PIO vide letter dated 04.05.2022, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA.The FAA vide order dated 06.06.2022, furnished a reply to the Appellant and disposed off the Appeal.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present in Person Respondent: Dr Aakash Deep Kumar Medical Officer, Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI application submitted that he had sought the cctv footage of the Director's office, Rajiv Gandhi Super specialty hospital, for a particular date and time period. When queried by the Commission about the reason for seeking this information he deposed that when in an emergency a heart attack patient in a particular case expired and all doctor and staff ran away and he stood firmly in front of enraged mob and treated the patient very sincerely and with honesty. But he said in the same matter he had an altercation with another doctor who accused him of physically assaulting him. He said he was falsely implicated in a wrong case and a committee was established to investigate the case as to whether the death was due to negligence .
Narrating the incident further he said when expert committee was interrogating the junior Cath Lab staff ( nursing and technician) along with the three committee members, two unauthorized female senior staff of Cath Lab/ cardiology were shockingly present inside conference room standing just adjacent to expert committee members so that the whole process became non-transparent.'He said that he also brought this fact immediately to the notice of Dr Page 2 of 4 Akashdeep (link officer) at that time in the proceeding itself as he felt this was deliberately done to derail the process of fair inquiry . He said he even emailed various authorities on the issue but did not receive any response. He said he has had a most impressive record as a doctor having performed the maximum possible number of heart operations in Delhi with a morally strong commitment to his profession but has been wrongly under suspension as a result of the episode and has been fighting in the court to get justice. He said he wanted the CCTC footage to prove his innocence in the court and had made the demand for the said footage soon after the incident. The respondent contradicted the appellant and said his professional conduct was under a radar.
The respondent further informed that a committee of renowned Cardiology experts from GB Pant Hospital and RML Hospital was constituted by Health & Family Welfare Department to inquire into the alleged medical negligence in death of three patients in a row on the same date i.e., 7/3/2022 in Cardiology department of RGSSH, under the Applicant. He said the committee held its proceedings in the RGSSH and examined all the medical and other documents and also called the witnesses i.e technicians, nurses and other doctors for this inquiry and added thar the proceedings were held in many areas of the hospital including the conference room of Director, RGSSH for ensuring the safety and security of witnesses and other deponents. He said the Appellant Dr. Praveen Singh was also called on the same date for the examination by the expert committee and he appeared, but did not submit any explanation. The conference room of the director office has facility of audio video, since the room is used for the purpose of teaching and training, he said and added that the recordings are generally not saved and auto deleted after 25 days. It may be observed that the presence of audio visual is incidental without any purpose to record anything pertaining to the confidential proceedings of the said inquiry committee, he said.
The respondent further deposed that the said matter is serious, regarding the patient care and safety as well as safety of the witness of staff and doctors and the matter is already sub-judice as well as under inquiry by the relevant agencies (Delhi Police, Delhi Medical Council and High Level Inquiry Committee). He said these Agencies will definitely share with the applicant documents/ CCTV etc., as available as part of the inquiry process at an appropriate stage of investigation ensuring fair inquiry as well as safety of patients / staff / doctors who have brought to the notice a serious professional misconduct of the applicant.
Page 3 of 4The Respondent in reply denied the allegations and said that an incidence of fight occurred between two senior doctors, Dr. Praveen Singh and Dr. Neeraj Pandit, and both the doctors approached concerned Police Station and lodge complaints against each other. He said after that the matter was taken up in court of Special Executive Magistrate (Shahdara) and further stated that as far as the information sought by the applicant is concerned the same is matter of internal inquiry being conducted by the RGSSH administration along with other administrative issues of the Cardiology Deptt.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that since the Appellant requires this information to prove his innocence in the court of law and directs the CPIO to furnish correct, point wise and complete information (CCTV footage redacting the audio conversation) to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The Respondent may redact the personal details of the third parties. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवसं त्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 27.02.2023 Page 4 of 4