Central Information Commission
Dilbag Singh vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 12 April, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITM/A/2020/137183
Dilbag Singh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, RTI Cell, Room No. 380,
3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,
Mumbai - 400020, Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11/04/2021
Date of Decision : 11/04/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/01/2020
CPIO replied on : 12/03/2020
First appeal filed on : 11/04/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 26/08/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23/11/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.01.2020 seeking the following information:
1) It is submitted that on dated 01.06.2019, a sudden cardiac arrest/heart attack, was happened with me and in emergency, I was admitted in emergency in a CGHS 1 non recognized Hospital. On the same day, it was found that there is blockage in the heart and Coronary angioplasty was done on the same day. I was admitted in the C.C.0 for 4 days. I want to know, whether as per latest CGHS Rules/Memorandum/ Guidelines / Circulars etc, Heart attack/cardiac arrest is a fatal disease or not.
2) I want to know, whether as per CGHS Rules/Memorandum/ Guidelines / Circulars etc, Heart attack/ cardiac arrest is a chronic /prolonged disease or not.
Kindly note that I have also submitted Emergency Certificate issued by the Holy Spirit Hospital, Andheri in which my treatment regarding heart attack/cardiac arrest was undergo in the month of June 2019. 3) I have submitted my medical bills on dated 16.07.2019 amounting Rs.1,93,140/- to the office of Addl.CIT(HQ)(Personal), Mumbai/ITO(HQ)(welfare 86 Staff Grievance), Mumbai for reimbursement but till date, there is no reimbursement of my medical bills. Please explain the sanctioned amount of total bills and reasons for rejection of medical bills. Which CGHS Rules / Memorandum / Guidelines / Circulars etc were followed by you. Please provide copy of the same. Whether such CGHS Rules/Memorandum/ Guidelines / Circulars etc was latest in regards to reimbursement of medical expenses. 4) In regards to reimbursement of medical bills by CGHS beneficiaries in regards to treatment in emergency from CGHS unrecognized Hospitals, there is CGHS office memorandum No. Z.15025/38/2018/DIR/CGHS/EHS dated 22.05.2018, whether same was followed or not ? If not followed, please provide copy of the latest CGHS Rules/Memorandum/ Guidelines / Circulars etc followed by you.
5) In the CGHS office memorandum No. Z.15025/38/2018/DIR/CGHS/EHS dated 22.05.2018, it is mentioned that if treatment was obtained from a CGHS unrecognized Hospital under emergency and patient was hospitalized for a prolonged period, then full reimbursement including accommodation/ bed charges, medicine, doctors charges, investigation and test charges, reports etc were paid in full. Please explain whether is CGHS office memorandum No. Z.15025/38/2018/DIR/CGHS/EHS dated 22.05.2018 was followed or not? If not, please provide copy of the same, on which you relied.
6) Is there any compulsion to obtained CGHS approved dispensary/doctor, which determine emergency before hospitalization in the case of sudden cardiac arrest/heart attack, as happened in my case. If yes, please provide copy of the same.
7) If cardiac arrest/heart attack is not considered as fatal disease under CGHS Rules and is not eligible for full reimbursement of medical expenses in emergency, please provide copy of the documents relied upon by you before sanctioning medical bills.
28) Is there any CGHS Rules regarding reimbursement of medical expenses incurred post emergency treatment in the case of Chronic disease like Cardiac arrest/ heart attack which is considered as a fatal disease all over the world, that the medical expenses of post emergency treatment will be given only and only in a case when CGHS doctors/dispensary etc will gave you permission. Do you think that in a fatal disease like cardiac arrest/heart attack which took thousands of life every year , it is advisable to take treatment from CGHS? If yes, provide copy of the documents relied upon by you. And if not, please explain why my medical bills amounting to Rs.23,804/- submitted on dated 03.01.2020 was rejected by you vide your letter No.ITO(welfare 86 SG)/Reimbursement 109/2019-20 dated 23.01.2020.
9) In regards to year 2018-19 and 2019-20, please provide following information
a) How many medical bills received, in which treatment was taken in emergency from a non recognized CGHS Hospitals
b) How many bills were passed and how many bills were rejected.
c) Total amount claimed by CGHS card holders in regards to point (a) above.
d) Total amount of bills rejected in regards to point (a) above.
e) Total amount of bills sanctioned on account of bed charges, medicine, medical test, investigation reports, doctors fees and visit charges in regards to point (a) above.
f) Total amount of OPD bills rejected, which was incurred as per doctor prescription in the case of chronic disease and whose treatment were taken in emergency as taken in my case.
g) Do you have any doubts on medical expenses incurred by me that the treatment was not prescribed by any qualified doctor.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 12.03.2020. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.04.2020. FAA's order dated 26.08.2020 observed and held as under:-
IV. "The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in this appeal, The information sought vide RTI application and the reply given by the CPIO vide his order dated 12.03.2020 under section 7(1) of RTI Act are considered. After careful consideration, the decision regarding the same is as under:
1. The CPIO had disposed off the RTI application of the applicant vide order u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act dated 12.03.02020. The said order served on the email of the applicant [email protected] on 13.03.2020 from the email id of the CPIO [email protected].
The said order was also dispatched through post. The applicant has filed 3 the first appeal before the FAA on 28.07.2020 which it after the due date for filing the appeal i.e. after 30 days of receipt of reply. The applicant has claimed that he had emailed his appeal to FAA i.e. Addl. CIT(HQ) Personnel on 11.04.2020 & 15.05.2020. However, no such email has been received on the email id of the FAA as claimed by the applicant. The applicant has not given any evidence/proof of mail delivery report of his email to FAA. Further, the applicant could have emailed his appeal to the CPIO who would have forwarded to his FAA for necessary action, however, the applicant did not email his appeal to CPIO also. Hence, in view of above facts, the appeal filed by the applicant is barred by limitation and on technical ground it is not admissible as barred by time limitation.
XXX
3. Hence, in view of above facts as discussed in Para IV (1), the appeal filed by the applicant is barred by time limitation and thus on technical ground it is not admissible. Further, the case has been discussed on merits also in Para IV (2), there is no merit in the grounds of appeal of the appellant. In view of the same, the appeal is not maintainable and therefore dismissed."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Subhendu Sinha, Income Tax Officer (HQ) System & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant stated that he has not received the desired information and he is unable to decipher the same from the public domain as opposed to what the CPIO has suggested.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application.4
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is largely in the form of seeking clarifications not conforming to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, yet the CPIO provided adequate inputs and addressed the concerns raised by the Appellant. As regards the data sought for at point no.9 of the RTI Application, the Commission does not find any infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO indicating that collection and collation of such humungous data will divert the resources of the public authority as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid judgment also records observations to the effect that impractical demand for information under the RTI Act cannot be entertained in the following words:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible 5 citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in the matter of KhanapuramGandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) 6 And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7