Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Yogesh Mahajan vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 27 March, 2026

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


 File No: CIC/AIIMS/A/2025/606852

 Yogesh Mahajan                                                .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                              VERSUS
                                               बनाम

 CPIO
 AIMS, DEPARTMENT OF ENT,
 ANSARI NAGAR, NEW
 DELHI-110029                                             .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

 Date of Hearing                     :   24.03.2026
 Date of Decision                    :   27.03.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Jaya Varma Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

 RTI application filed on            :   09.09.2024
 CPIO replied on                     :   24.09.2024
 First appeal filed on               :   08.10.2024
 First Appellate Authority's order   :   21.11.2024
 2nd Appeal dated                    :   07.02.2025


Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.09.2024(online) seeking the following information:

"Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, I request the following information concerning the Cochlear Implant Patient Information Sheet, which was previously available on the AIIMS website:

1 Please provide the details and criteria used to create the Cochlear Implant Patient Information Sheet, including any studies, evidence, or expert opinions that supported the claims made about Nucleus 24 compared to other FDA- approved implants like Advanced Bionics and Med-EL.

2 kindly provide the copies of any comparative analyses or evaluations conducted to support the information presented in the sheet regarding the Nucleus 24 implant. This includes any studies or reports comparing Nucleus 24 with Advanced Bionics and Med-EL in terms of performance, features, or safety. 3 Please provide the exact date when the Cochlear Implant Patient Information Sheet was withdrawn from the AIIMS website and the reasons for its withdrawal 4 Kindly provide the details of the committees, authorities, or departments responsible for the creation, review, and approval of the Cochlear Implant Patient Information Sheet.

5 Kindly provide the copies of any internal reviews, recommendations, or feedback that were considered during the creation and updating of the sheet. 6 Kindly provide the copies of any official communications, orders, or documents recording the decision to withdraw the Cochlear Implant Patient Information Sheet from the AIIMS website.

7 Kindly provide any documents, guidelines, or circulars that govern the creation and dissemination of patient information sheets at AIIMS, especially those related to medical implants.

8 Kindly provide records detailing the process and criteria through which specific cochlear implants, such as Nucleus 24, Advanced Bionics, and Med-EL, were recommended or endorsed in the Cochlear Implant Patient Information Sheet, including any procurement policies followed for cochlear implants. Please provide the requested information electronically to my email address."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.09.2024 stating as under:

"Point no.1:The estimate containing basic information is given to all eligible patients. This is as per rate contract rule of AIIMS and renew every two year. Point no.2:Patient Information Sheet is based on surgeons experience and available evidence in literature on Cochlear Implant science. Point no.3:Transferred to the CPIO, Computer Facility, AIIMS, New Delhi. Point no.4-5: Patient Information Sheet is based on surgeons experience and available evidence in literature on Cochlear Implant science. Point no.6:The records are not available with Department. Refer to Computer Facility, AIIMS, New Delhi.

Point no.7-8:Patient Information Sheet is based on surgeons experience and available evidence in literature on Cochlear Implant science."

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.10.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 21.11.2024, held as under:

"I have gone through the information sheet wh was available on AIIMS Website and it is for general information about Cochlear Implants to be distributed to patients who do not have knowledge about its device, its prices etc. CPIO and CAPIΟ is requested to check if there is any documentation of meeting to created "information sheet" and provide same to applicant if any. It is understandable if no such documentation is available as most such sheets are based on surgeons and teams experiences.

Already provided by CPIO, any clarification needed, applicant may personally contact CPIO.

Replied satisfactorily by CPIO."

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

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Shri Hitesh Verma, CPIO-cum-Professor, Dr. Poonam Sagar, Assistant Professor and Shri Pawan Kumar, System Analyst, attended the hearing in person.

5. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.

6. The Respondent submitted that a suitable and pointwise reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 24.09.2024. He added that the information regarding the cochlear implant has been published on their website.

7. A copy of written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 25.02.2026 and the same has been taken on record.

8. A written submission has been received from Shri Pawan Kumar, System Analyst, vide letter dated 24.03.2026, stating as under:

"Attached herewith is information published on our AlIMS' website regarding cochlear implant (hyperlink https://www.aiims.edu/index.php/en/2014-12-10- 12-18-15/otorhinolalogy patient)"

Decision:

9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been given by the Respondent. It is pertinent to mention that the information regarding the cochlear implant has been published on the Respondent's website and the Respondent has also provided the relevant URL to access the same vide letter dated 24.03.2026. However, a copy of the averred letter dated 24.03.2026 has not been sent to the Appellant. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to send the same to the Appellant within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasistha) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 CIC/AIIMS/A/2025/606852 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)