Central Information Commission
V P S Tomar vs Gnctd on 24 June, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/103302
V P S Tomar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Directorate General of Health
Services, F-17, Karkardooma,
Delhi - 110092 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.05.2025
Date of Decision : 24.06.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 09.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 20.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"(i) Copy of the approval/decision of Competent Authority obtained before issuing decision/directions of Dr. Sushma Jain (AD, DGEHS) to obtain special permission from her (AD, DGEHS), for Page 1 of 5 immunotherapy/chemotherapy, for treatment of cancer patient, in case of DGHS Pensioners."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.11.2023 stating as under:
"As per record, the information sought by you in the RTI is reply/information received from officer concerned ile Additional Director(DGEHS), DGHS (HQ), Govt. of NCT of Delhi is enclosed in 01 page.
Encl. dated 03.11.2023 is as under:
1. The opinion of govt. specialist and competent authority (DGHS) was taken in the file received from concerned department, the same was sent to the department, so you may avail the copy of approval (noting sheet) from your department."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.12.2023, held as under.
"The appeal was conducted on 06.12.2023 SMO(DGEHS), PIO(RTI) and the appellant were present in the appeal. AD(DGEHS) is directed to provide the revised reply within 7 days to the appellant.
Order passed and appeal disposed of accordingly."
4. In compliance of FAA's order the Addl. Director (DGEHS) furnished a revised reply dated 26.12.2023 to the appellant is as under:
"1. The mail provided during first appeal was not sent by the DGEHS branch. The BLK hospital was informed to avail prior permission w.r.t. imported medicines/experimental therapies as per provisions mentioned in OM dated 23.12.2014 and 25.08.2014 (Copy enclosed)."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.Page 2 of 5
Respondent: Dr. Anshul Mudgal, PIO-cum-Senior Medical Officer and Shri Amit Rajput, Junior Assistant, attended the hearing in person.
6. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
7. The Respondent submitted that information pertaining to copy of noting as sought by the Appellant in the RTI Application is not available in the records and the same might be available in Appellant's own department. He added that following repeated requests from the Appellant regarding the immunotherapy injection (Inj. Pembrolizumab) for patient Mrs. Parnita (wife of the Appellant), the matter was placed before the duly constituted Expert Committee under the Chairpersonship of the DGHS, GNCTD. This committee included experts such as the Head of Medical Oncology, VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, faculty from Medical Oncology, AIIMS New Delhi, and the SPO (DGEHS) as members. After due deliberation, the committee did not approve the said treatment. He further submitted that the Appellant approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and produced a hard copy of an email during the appeal. It was clarified to the FAA at that time that no such email was sent by this Directorate either to the Appellant or to any empaneled hospitals. This clarification is also reflected in the formal reply submitted to the FAA by the AD (DGEHS). He further handed over a copy of written submissions dated 28.05.2025 to the Appellant during the hearing. The Respondent orally submits that no other communication as assumed/alleged by the Appellant is available with the Respondent Public Authority or in the custody of the PIO.
8. A written submission has been received from Dr. Anshul Mudgal, PIO-
cum-Senior Medical Officer, vide letter dated 23.05.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"In compliance to your Notice for CIC hearing, file no. CIC/GNTCD/A/2024/103302 dated 13.05.2025 for hearing dated 28.05.2025 at 11:00 AM in the matter of Mr. V.P.S.Tomar Vs. Directorate of Health Services, GNCTD. IL is to inform that the RTI application offline filed by Mr. V.P.S. Tomar applicant via PIO/RTI/DHS/2023119 dated 20.10.2023 (Copy enclosed Annexure-1). The said RTI pertains to In-charge (DGEHS), DGHS (HQ), GNCTD.Page 3 of 5
Hence, the RTI application of Mr. V.P.S.Tomar was forwarded to In-charge (DGFHS), DGHS (HQ), GNCTD, vide letter No. PIO/RTI/DHS/2023119/2863 dated 20.10.2023 (Copy enclosed Annexure-2).
In this regard, a first appeal heard before the First Appellate Authority on dated 06.12.2023 at 11:00A.M and order passed on 06.12.2023 (Copy Enclosed Annexure-3).
It is further submitted that a letter dated 21.05.2025 has been sent to In charge (DGEHS), DHS(HQ), Delhi, GNCTD along with copy of the above notice of. CIC with the request to send the latest status of reply directly to the Hon'ble CIC on urgent basis and also intimated to attend the hearing of CIC on 28.05.2025 at 11:00 AM (Copy enclosed Annexure-4)."
9. A written submission has been received from Dr. SK Nayak, SPO, DGEHS, vide letter dated 28.05.2025 and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"Hon'ble Sir, With reference to the RTI Act, 2005 (ID No. DGHS-2023119), the applicant had sought certain information. In response, this Directorate informed the applicant that:
"The opinion of the Government specialist and the competent authority ( (noting sheet) from his department."
In this regard, it is respectfully submitted to the Hon'ble CIC that the request for the said immunotherapy medicines was received in a file forwarded by the concerned department of the applicant. Expert opinion was accordingly provided in consultation with a Government Medical Oncologist, and the file was returned to the originating department. The RTI response reflected this process.
Subsequently, the applicant approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and produced a hard copy of an email during the appeal. It was clarified to the FAA at that time that no such email was sent by this Directorate either to the applicant or to any empanelled hospitals. This clarification is also reflected in the formal reply submitted to the FAA by the AD (DGEHS).
Furthermore, it is submitted that, following repeated requests from the applicant regarding the immunotherapy injection (Inj. Pembrolizumab) for patient Mrs. Parnita (wife of the applicant), the matter was placed before the duly constituted Expert Committee under the Chairpersonship of the DGHS, Page 4 of 5 GNCTD. This committee included experts such as the Head of Medical Oncology, VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, faculty from Medical Oncology, AIIMS New Delhi, and the SPO (DGEHS) as members. After due deliberation, the committee did not approve the said treatment."
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent has provided a suitable reply to the Appellant as available in their records and under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and in the form held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The CPIO is neither supposed to create information that is not a part of the record, nor is he required to interpret information nor provide clarification. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case for further adjudication.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)