Central Information Commission
Prashant Reddy vs Pg Institute Of Medical Education & ... on 5 December, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PGIME/A/2023/617621
Shri Prashant Reddy ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
PG Institute of Medical Education & Research,
Chandigarh
Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024
Date of Decision : 02.12.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.10.2022
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 01.01.2023
First Appellate Order on : 27.02.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 26.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.10.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"In the October 11th issue of the Tribune it was reported that PGI submitted an internal report pertaining to the deaths of 5 patients due to possible substandard propofol used as a sedative. Please provide a copy of said report and whether any legal action has been taken on the basis of said report."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 27.02.2023 stated as under:-
"I have gone through the case. The Chairman of the Committee constituted to look into the details of adverse events reported by Department of Neuro-Anasthesia /Neurosurgery has submitted its final report on the matter in question to the Director, PGI on 4.10.2022. The same report has further been submitted to the Director, Health Services-cum-Drug Controller-cum-Licensing Authority, UT, Chandigarh by the Sr. Administrative Officer (Vigilance), PGI vide its letter dated 11.10.2022 for further needful Page 1 action. Thus, the applicant is requested to take up the matter with quarter concerned."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 20.11.2024 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Advocate and Ms. Kanu Garg, Advocate - Authorized Repreataive of the Appellant- - participated in the hearing.
Respondent: Dr. Raman Sharma- Associate Professor- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
Advocate N. Sai Vinod stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO till date. He stated that in the instant RTI Application the Appellant has sought copy of internal report of the PGIMER, Chandigarh pertaining to the deaths of 5 patients due to possible substandard propofol injection used as a sedative. He submitted that as per the newspaper report PGIMER's internal committee has found that the substandard propofol injections led to fatal kidney failures, which eventually resulted in death of 5 patients. He stated that the discloure of report as sought by the Appellant is significant and same is in public interest. He averred that the propofol drug in question has failed safety tests, leading to kidney failure-related deaths. He contended that the case involves serious implications for patient safety and drug quality, necessitating transparency to safeguard public health. He stated that the discloure of report will promote accountability and help prevent similar incidents. He further stated that the CPIO or FAA has not quoted any exemption clause while denying the discloure of report which is gross violation of provisions of the RTI Act.
The Respondent stated that the information sought by the Appellant relates to an internal committee report with respect to propofol injection which was being used as anaesthetic on Neurosurgery patients. He stated that adverse events were reported by the Department of Neurosurgery due to which an internal committee was set up on the direction of Director, PGIMER, Chandigarh to look into the matter. He stated that the report of the internal committee has been submitted to the concerned Ministry for further action, therefore, the report cannot be disclosed at this stage since the matter is still pending for final decision by the Ministry. Upon being queried by the Commission whether the drug in question has been banned for use or not the PIO stated that the drug relating to which information has been sought has been discontinued after the complaints were received against the same.
Decision:
Both the parties submitted their oral contentions during the hearing and reiterated their documentary submissions so far. Commission observes as submitted by the Appellant CPIO while denying the Page 2 requisite information has failed to claim any exemption under the RTI Act. Commission observes that in order to deny information, it is important that the denial should be as per the provisions of the RTI Act and also if any of the exemption clauses mentioned under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 is claimed, the Respondent is required to provide justification or establish the reason why such exemption was claimed. It is a settled principle of law that disclosure of information is the only established Rule for promoting transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and exemption can only be claimed when the information sought falls within the gamut of exemptions provided under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Mere claim of the Respondent that information cannot be disclosed is not appropriate. The Commission also observed that as per the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in an Appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO. The CPIO responding to the RTI application, has not mentioned any specific exemption clause in their reply to justify their position as to how the disclosure of information would be in contravention to any of the provisions enshrined under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.
In view of foregoing, the Commission directs the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised fresh reply as available in their records, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. In doing so PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the Appellant and the PIO shall quote and justify the application of specific exemption clause in the reply while denying the information sought as per the provision of RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)