Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Prem Prakash Prajapati vs Department Of Health & Family Welfare on 16 October, 2017

                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                   August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
                              New Delhi-110066

                                         F. No. CIC/MOHFW/A/2017/115341
                                                CIC/MOHFW/A/2017/125719



Date of Hearing                      :    23.08.2017
Date of Decision                     :    03.10.2017

Appellant/Complainant                :    Prem Prakash Prajapati

Respondent                           :    CPIO .MoHFW


Information Commissioner             :    Shri Yashovardhan Azad

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on             :    03.01.2017
PIO replied on                       :    16.01.2017
First Appeal filed on                :    27.01.2017
First Appellate Order on             :    14.02.2017
2nd Appeal/complaint received on     :    07.03.2017

Information sought

and background of the case:

Vide RTI application dated 03.01.2017, the appellant sought the following:

1. Copy of document mentioning grounds for "NABL accreditation"

2. Number of ISO standard and title on that basis a diagnostic lab/medical lab is accredited

3. Copy of document mentioning the ground on which basis laboratories accredited by other accreditation body (other than NABL) are not permitted to provide services under National Health Mission.

CPIO vide letter dated 16.01.2016 furnished information as available on record and advised the appellant to visit the website http://www.nabl- india.org/ for more details. Dissatisfied with the response of public authority on point No.3, the appellant filed an appeal. The FAA vide order dated 14.02.2016 informed that the NHM Free Diagnostic Service initiative was approved by the Government. A copy of the notesheet Page 1 of 4 containing approval of the Competent Authority to the NHM Free Diagnostic Service initiative has also been furnished to the appellant.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.

CIC/MOHFW/A/2017/125719 Information sought and background of the case:

Vide RTI application dated 27.01.2017, the appellant sought to know the following :

1. Has Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India the legal identity of ILAC/APLAC, if yes then a copy of the same be provided

2. Has MoHFW has the address ILAC/APLAC in its record if yes then a copy of the same be provided

3. If ILAC/APLAC provide membership by illegal means then ILAC/APLAC be prosecuted in India if yes then a copy of the same be provided

4. Is there any notification from Govt of India that membership /agreement of ILAC/APLAC is mandatory for an accreditation body to run accreditation programme in india, if yes then a copy of the same be provided

5. Has Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, collected details/records about NABL before mentioning the unfair condition "NABL accreditation", if yes a copy of the same be provided.

CPIO vide letter dated 08.02.2016 furnished point wise information a available on record and informed that addresses of ILAC/APLAC are available on their websites; http://ilac.org/ and https://aplac.org/ and details about NABL are available on http://www.nabl-india.org/. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal which remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

The parties are present and heard at length. Since the subject matter of the captioned appeals is same, they are taken up together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

In Appeals No. CIC/MOHFW/A/2017/115341 and CIC/MOHFW/A/2017/125719 wherein respondent is Ministry of Health & Family welfare, the Appellant is aggrieved with information furnished. The Appellant states that NABL is state protected monopolistic accrediting body which serves as an accreditation body to the recognized food testing laboratories as per Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. He states that the NABL is a member of International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) which, in view of Appellant is a self styled organization with no legal sanctity. He states that NABL relies heavily on ILAC guidelines for the purposes of technical calibration, testing and medical testing. The Appellant seeks to question the basis of reliance of NABL on ILAC accreditation. In this backdrop, the appellant questions the very existence of NABL citing alleged drop in medical standards by following ILAC model. He further suggests that lab accreditation must be from an internationally respected organization such as ISO and not from NABL. It is further the contention of the Appellant that for empanelment of laboratories under the National Health Mission, the MoH&FW has prescribed an excessive requirement of NABL certification.

On the other hand, the PIO, MoH &FW states that the NABL is an autonomous organization under the aegis of Ministry of Science & Technology, GoI and the decision to institutionalize the accreditation process through NABL is a Govt. Policy, which the Appellant is attempting to impugn. The PIO states that GoI has not recognized international affiliations of the NABL, which are entered into by the NABL being an autonomous organization.

Decision:

Admittedly, the whole concept of accreditation of laboratories is aimed at delivering confidence to the user and uniformity in acceptance of results worldwide. NABL in its role as domestic regulator of laboratory standards may prescribe the requisite standards. Also, NABL may enter into international tie ups and thus, the same is within its capacity and nobody can find fault with the same. The only germane issue to which the deliberation is confined presently is the decision of MoH&FW to prescribe NABL accreditation as a precondition for the empanelment of laboratories under the National Health Mission of GoI. Though the PIO has answered the interrogatory queries of Appellant in great detail, however, details of decision of competent authority to exclude non NABL accredited laboratories in the National Health Mission has not been revealed to the Appellant.

The policy to include or exclude any laboratory and prescribe certain minimum standards thereof is a conscious policy decision. A policy may be Page 3 of 4 applauded or subjected to criticism as it connotes different things to different people. However, being an adversely affected party by the said eligibility imposed, the Appellant has a right to know the basis and reasons preceding the decision to empanel only NABL accredited laboratories for the National Health Mission to the total exclusion of all other non NABL accredited laboratories. The decision essentially is a executive decision and the Appellant has thus a right to seek reasons thereof under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Accordingly the respondent MoH & FW is directed to communicate reasons for prescribing only NABL accreditation as an essential for empanelment of laboratories under the National Health Mission, to the Appellant within 4 weeks of receipt of this order.

The Appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms.

(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.

(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-