Central Information Commission
Smt.Anushree Jain vs Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare on 11 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/001122/15621
Appeal No. CIC/SG/C/2010/001122
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Anushree Jain,
7A/29, W.E.A , Karol Bagh
New Delhi - 110005
Respondent : The Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi- 110 001
Facts arising from the Complaint:
Ms. Anushree Jain has filed the present Complaint under section 18 of the RTI Act (hereinafter 'the Act'), with the Commission, contending that the Respondent, which is a public authority as per the said Act, should be directed to publish on its website the procurement and the maintenance schedules of hospital equipment. She has stated that there have been innumerable cases wherein incubators meant for infants catch fire resulting in the death of infants. This information should be published in pursuance of its obligations under section 4 (1) (b) of the Act. She has also suggested a format which is as follows:
S.No Equipment Name of Name of Date of Cost of Recommend Date of last Whether If not name manufacturer Supplier purchase procurement ed frequency maintenance functional functional for check, Name or not details of maintenance of officer action taken (yearly, half supervising yearly, monthly, quarterly) Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Complainant: Ms. Rajul Jain on behalf of the Appellant, alongwith Mr. Rajeev Lochan Mahunta; Respondent : Ms. Gayatri Mishra, Director, Hospitals (MOHF); Mr. Avinash Singh, Store Officer; Dr. Ajay Kumar, CPIO; Dr. Archana Patil, Joint Director (Health Services); Dr. Rajesh Sharma, Joint Director; Er. Manoj Modi, Bio Medical Engineering; Dr. Anil Kulsheshtra, Additional MS; Dr. Anil Sain, CMO(HA); Dr. R. K. Anand, CPIO Safdarjung Hospital; Mr. A. Chakarborty, Asst. Store Superintendent; Mr. Naveen Issar, CAPIO; Mr. H. R. Sharma, Joint Secretary MOHF; Mr. Sanjay Pant, Under Secretary; Mr. V. K. Paul, AIIMS; Dr. Sidhartha Satpathy; Mr. K. D. Sharma, Store Officer(DO); Dr. Ajay Khera, Dy. Commissioner; Dr. Dheeraj Behl, , CMO; Dr. R. C. Vashishtha, CO(SAG);Page 1 of 4
The Appellant contends that there have been a large number of cases where, due to poor maintenance of equipment, infants die an untimely death, mostly due to the equipment failure.
Dr. Archana Patil, who is handling Government Hospitals in the State of Maharashtra, states that information must be there on the website but overall the system of equipment management has to be improved. To this the Commission is of the opinion that it is accepted that there are widespread issues, putting up information in the public domain would perhaps create a pressure on the concerned authorities. Officers monitoring these equipments also have a wide task ahead of them, the idea of the Commission being that the information published would get the citizens at large to view the same and inform the concerned superior authorities in case of any mismanagement etc. The Respondents present also contend that all hospitals may not have websites, but Dr. Archna Patil states that for Maharashtra state the department has website for this.
It was further stated by Ms. Gayatri Mishra, that the Health is a state subject and a total number of central Government hospitals/institutions and Central Autonomous institutions numbering 10 to 12.
To this Dr. Sidhartha Satpathy representing All India Institute of Medical Sciences states that the going deep within the purviews of the sub sections of Section 4 of the RTI Act, is a question in itself. He informed the Commission about the procedure of procurement and the reason for procurement of equipments. It is his contention that these instants of infant deaths as stated by the Appellant are isolated incidents. That there are established quality standards for equipments used for patient care in some developed countries. The equipments manufactured in the United States of America and the European Union generally conform to good quality standards. However, there are only very few organisations in India which experienced in the sale and maintenance of such equipment. That in India, any person can start distributing medical equipments, as there is no law specifying standards.
It is accepted by the Commission that all factors with respect to this issue can not be addressed at this platform. It is in our opinion that if there is anything that can be done by this Commission within its jurisdictions to curtail these horrific incidents, we should not deter in doing so. The Commission believes that transparency would bring positive changes since thousands of citizens would help in monitoring and bringing about better accountability.
Ms. Gayatri Mishra submits that the Health Ministry can send out a circular in this regard for all States.
Dr. Sidharth Satpathy states that AIIMS uses a large number of patient care equipments and it will be very difficult to put these on the website. He states there is a log sheet for each particular equipment and if any anomaly is found the same is recorded and the equipment is not used for patient care at AIIMS. He feels that the existing system at AIIMS is fairly robust.
Dr. Vinod Paul, representing Director AIIMS, states that the issue is that the equipment at the foremost should be the appropriate equipment and there is no regulation at that point. He submits that the NRHM has provided funds to state governments to procure maternal-neo natal care equipment at facilities to reduce infant and maternal mortality. During the bidding processes high quality Indian and foreign manufactured equipments are out of the league as they are competing with their cheaper counterparts in the market. There are no standards for such equipments and no regulation barring entry of unsafe, non-standard equipment into the market. Faulty s equipment can end up burning itself and the baby it holds. There are fundamental flaws in these procurement procedures. He suggests that there has to be standards made, regulations established to ensure that only standardized equipment can be put to use in Hospitals. There was a Medical Devices Regulatory Authority bill circulated in the year 2006, but we have not seen any movement in this regard. He further states that the names of the manufacturers of the equipments which have already burnt should be put on the website of the department.Page 2 of 4
The Representatives from AIIMS and RML Hospitals state that this would disproportionately affect the man power of these hospitals, as the information is voluminous However, the Respondents and Appellant have to come to a common consensus that the suggested format should be for equipments costing above `one lakh, incubators and Neo-Natal radiant Warmers. The Respondents request six months time for implementing the order.
The Right to Information is a fundamental right of the citizens which has been codified by the RTI Act, No. 22 of 2005. The Act envisions that all citizens shall receive information primarily by suo moto disclosures by various public authorities as prescribed by section (4) of the act. It further envisages that citizens would be required to specifically ask for information under section (6) only in a few cases. However, when Public Authorities do not fulfill their obligations under section (4), citizens have no way but to seek information under section (6), which in turn becomes a cost for the citizens as well as the government. Disclosures in accordance with Section (4) of the RTI Act are crucial to ensure transparency and accountability in public authorities. This would reduce the load of RTI Applications being filed with each public authority as information would be freely available to citizens and they would not have to apply for it.
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed.
In view of the aforesaid and from the facts before it, the Commission under the powers vested in it by Section 19 (8) (a) of the RTI act, hereby directs the following:-
1. The list shall be proactively displayed on the website of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and respective departmental/hospital websites, for patient care equipments costing above `one lakh, Incubators and Neo-Natal Radiant Warmers, for equipments purchased on or after 1st April 2007.
This will be maintained by the head of the public authority/ head of institution as the case may be, or the officers so directed by him in writing, so long as the RTI act is in force.
2. The list shall be updated by the 10th of each month.
3. A circular in this regard shall be issued to the respective State Governments.
4. A sign board of appropriate dimension shall be installed, mentioning that details of procurement and maintenance of equipment is available on the website of the department. The exact link/URL to the page on the website of the Ministry/ department where the information can be viewed will be mentioned. No acronym/abbreviation should be used. This information shall be inscribed both in English and Hindi, and shall be installed at a location having maximum public view. This will be maintained by the head of the public authority/ head of institution as the case may be, or the officers so directed by him in writing, so long as the RTI act is in force.
Page 3 of 4The above directions shall be complied by the 1st May 2012. Necessary standing instructions shall be issued to the concerned officers in this regard.
The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, shall send a report of compliance of the above directions to this Commission by 10th May 2012. The compliance report may be sent to [email protected], with a copy to the complainant and should contain the following essential information:
1. The exact link/URL to the page on the website of the Ministry/ departments where the information can be viewed.
2. Details of Standing orders issued.
3. Copy of Circular issued to Respective State Governments.
4. Measures put in place to ensure regular updating of the information uploaded on the websites and made available at the offices.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 11 November 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ANP) Page 4 of 4