Central Information Commission
Krishan Kumar vs Quality Council Of India on 2 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/QCIND/A/2023/136920, CIC/QCIND/A/2023/136922
CIC/QCIND/A/2023/136923, CIC/QCIND/A/2023/139528.
Krishan Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Quality Council of India,
2nd Floor, Institution of
Engineers Building, B.S. Zafar
Marg, New Delhi - 110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.12.2024
Date of Decision : 30.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for disposal
through common order as these are based on similar RTI applications of the
same appellant.
CIC/QCIND/A/2023/136920
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 20.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 08.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.09.2023
Page 1 of 11
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1 आपको N.A.B.H क थापना नो ट फकेशन भारत सरकार वा य वभाग के आदे श क त दे ने के लए है ।
2 वो आदे श / नद" श क त / Act िजसके तहत C.E.O N.A.B.H द%ल& काम करे गा भारत दे श /ह(रयाणा रा*य म+ काम करने का अ-धकार / शि/त दान करता है ।
मांगी गई सूचना समय पर न दे ना पर/ आपके पास भारत सरकार क अनुम त नह& होनी समझी जाएगी।"
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 20.06.2023 stating as under:
"1 10 माच7, 2005 को आयोिजत भारतीय गण ु व8ा प(रषद के शासी नकाय क 15वीं बैठक क काय7वाह& के अनुसार "Secretary General gave brief account of activities being persued based on recommendation of vision committee. As regard to the work on Health sector, scheme for launch of Hospital accreditation has been submitted to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare for their comments. Based on the feedback, QCI shall launch the programme. Governing body appreciated this initiative and in- principle approved the launch of accreditation for Hospital & Health service providers."
11 अ ैल, 2005 को आयोिजत भारतीय गण ु व8ा प(रषद क 07वीं वा ष7क बैठक क काय7वाह& के अनुसार "SG informed members that blueprint on setting up of accreditation board for hospitals & health service providers has been submitted to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. In-principle approval for such a board was accorded in 15th GB. Members adapted the same."
Page 2 of 112 भारतीय गण ु व8ा प(रषद के बोड7 के सी.ई.ओ क नयुि/त खुले व?ापन और एक खोज सह-चयन स म त (Search cum- Selection committee) के माAयम से होती है । (सेवा और व8 मैनुअल [service and finance manual] के संरचना खंड 2.12.1 म+ प(रभा षत) अ-धक जानकार& के लए कृपया नCन लंक दे ख+ः https://qcin.org/public/uploads/ck docs/1612510456.Service%20&%20Finance%20Manual%202018%20(3) compressed.pdf"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 07.08.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/QCIND/A/2023/136922 CIC/QCIND/A/2023/136923 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.05.2023 CPIO replied on : 20.06.2023 First appeal filed on : 01.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.08.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"मुझे साEय के तौर पर वो आदे श दे िजसके तहत C.E.O Dr. Atul Mohan Kochhar को भारत सरकार ने माण पG No. H-2020-0707 dt. 28 May 2020/ Sukhda Multi specialty Hospital, Hisar जार& करने क शि/त दान करता है ।
Aयान दे ने क बात है क अगर साEय नह& है वा सरकार के Hवारा भारत सरकार के Hवारा जार& नह& है तो समय अव-ध मे साEय न दे ना ह& आदे श न होना समझा जायेगा।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.06.2023 stating as under:
"एन.ए.बी.एच एक नयामक सं था (regulatory body) नह&ं है तथा एक वैिIछक Kयायन नकाय (accreditation body) है। एन.ए.बी.एच जनादे श मानकL के दायरे म+ आकलन तक ह& सी मत है ।Page 3 of 11
एन.ए.बी.एच नधा7(रत Mया के अनुसार अ पतालL क ा नर&Nण क रता है तथा तदनुसार Kयायन / माणन (accreditation/ certification) दान क रता है ।
लागू एन.ए.बी.एच Kयायन / माणन (accreditation/ certification) मानक L (standards) के अनुपालन के आधार पर अ पताल क ोएन.ए.बी.एच Kयायन / माणन दान क या जाता है ।
एन.ए.बी.एच/ भारतीय गुणव8ा प(रषद के नयम और व नयम (rules and regulations) से सCबं-धत जानक ार& के लए आप एन.ए.बी.एच वेबसाइट https://nabh.co/#gsc.tab=0 तथा भारतीय गुणव8ा प(रषद वेबसाइट https://qcin.org/ क ा अवलोक न क र सक ते हP।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 07.08.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/QCIND/A/2023/139528 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.05.2023 CPIO replied on : 20.06.2023 First appeal filed on : 20.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.08.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"आप मुझे वो फेश file क मुकCमल त दे िजसको हा सल करके डा.० अ मत मेहता, सुखदा ह पताल, हसार को dt 28 May 2020 to 27 May 2023 तक माण पG= H- 2020- 0707 जार& करके माRयता द& है वा म%ट& पेश ल ट शSद के प(रवा-चक शSदL का वण7न दे /या यह होि पटल म+ योग वैHय है ।
वो भी रा ता बतलाएंसाEय दे िजसके तहत माRयता द& है ।Page 4 of 11
समय अव-ध म+ सूचना ना देना भी आवेदन file मेनTट करना वा ना होना समझा जाएगा।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.06.2023 stating as under:
"अ पताल को एन.ए.बी.एच Kयायन / माणन (accreditation/ certification) उपयु/त (applicable) एन.ए.बी.एच Kयायन / माणन मानकL के अनुपालन के आधार पर दान कया जाता है।
तथा प अ पताल Hवारा एन.ए.बी.एच को तुत कए गए द तावेज एवंजानकार& एन.ए.बी. एच के पास Kययी Nमता म+ उपलSध है ।
अतः अ पताल द तावेज़ से सCबं-धत जानकार& सूचना के अ-धकार अ-ध नयम, 2005 क धारा 8 (1) (e) के तहत साझा नह&ंक जा सकती है ।
मानकL से सCबं-धत जानकार& के लए कृपया नCन लं क दे ख+:
https://nabh.co/NABHStandards.aspx#gsc.tab=0 यहाँ उ%लेख करना उ-चत है क XयाYयाKमक Zन "म%ट& पेश ल ट शSद के प(रवा-चक शSदL का वण7न दे /या यह होि पटल म+ योग वैHय है " से सCबं-धत जानकार& सूचना के अ-धकार अ-ध नयम क धारा 2 (एफ) के दायरे म+ नह&ंआती है। अतः वह दान नह&ंक जा सकती है ।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 07.08.2023, held as under:
"क+[&य लोक सूचना अ-धकार& Hवारा आरट&आई अ-ध नयम, 2005 के अनुसार तथा एन.ए.बी.एच / भारतीय गुणव8ा प(रषद के (रकॉड7 म+ जो भी जानकार& उपलSध थी दान क है।
अ पताल Hवारा एन.ए.बी.एच को तुत कयेगयेद तावेज एवंजानकार& तीसरेपN क जानकार& सेसंब-ंधत है तथा एन.ए.बी.एच केपास Kययी Nमता म+ उपलSध है ।Page 5 of 11
इस सRदभ7 म+ जानकार& साझा करनेके लए एन.ए.बी.एच नेअ पताल सेसहम त मांगी गई थी तथा अ पताल नेजानकार& साझा करनेसेइनकार कर दया है । अतः अ पताल सेसंब-ंधत द तावेज़ उपलSध नह&ंकराए जा सकतेहP।
उपरो/त त यL केआधार पर मुझेक+[&य लोक सूचना अ-धकार& के नण7य म+ ह तNेप करनेका कोई कारण नह&ं दखता है और इसी को Aयान म+ रखतेहुए आपक थम अपील का नपटारा कया जाता है ।"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Dr. Hari Prakash, Director/PIO along with Shri Jagminder Kataria, Joint Director and Ms. Deepti Mohan, Joint Director, QCI present in person.
A written submission dated 17.12.2024 against each instant appeal has been filed by Dr. Hari Prakash, Director/PIO, QCI, which is taken on record. Relevant contents of the same (case File No. wise) are reproduced below:
CIC/QCIND/A/2023/136920.
"...2. Submissions of NABH/ QCI highlighting facts: a. Contention of applicant pertaining to non disclosure of documents for establishment of NABH and orders defining powers of CEO, NABH: National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH) is not a regulatory authority, but a voluntary accreditation body.
Hence, all information on records of NABH/ QCI including extracts pertaining to Minutes of Governing body meeting and annual meeting pertaining to establishment of NABH have already been provided as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005. Further, applicant was also provided details pertaining to appointment of CEO, NABH and Service & Finance Manual link which provides details.
b. Apprehension of applicant pertaining to statutory provisions and role of NABH:
Page 6 of 11I. Applicant through second appeal is referring to various statutory provisions and has stated that these provisions do not allow NABH to issue recognition to hospital.
II. In this regard, it is hereby apprised that NABH a constituent board of QCI is not a regulatory authority but a voluntary accreditation body set up to establish and operate accreditation programme for healthcare organizations. It does not give recognition to hospitals. III. NABH as an organization has a limited role of assessments and accreditation. The role of NABH/QCI is limited to give accreditation to the institutes that apply for the same which is based on compliance to the relevant accreditation standards. The board while being supported by all stakeholders including industry, consumers, government, have full functional autonomy in its operation.
c. Apprehensions and allegations being raised by applicant. it is pertinent to mention that there is no deliberate denial of information as stated by applicant. Further, false allegations are being raised by applicant on public authority. Information has been provided to applicant as per records available with NABH/ QCI and as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005...."
CIC/QCIND/A/2023/136922 and CIC/QCIND/A/2023/136923.
"...2. Submissions of NABH/QCI highlighting facts:
a. Contention of applicant pertaining to non disclosure of documents- National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH) is not a regulatory authority, but a voluntary accreditation body.
Hence, information which was available on records of NABH/ QCI has already been provided as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
b. Apprehension of applicant pertaining to statutory provisions and role of NABH:
I. NABH a constituent board of QCI is not a regulatory authority but a voluntary accreditation body set up to establish and operate accreditation programme for healthcare organizations.
II. NABH as an organization has a limited role of assessments and accreditation. The role of NABH/QCI is limited to give accreditation to the institutes that apply for the same which is based on compliance to the relevant accreditation standards. Rules and regulations pertaining to Page 7 of 11 NABH/QCI are available on website for which links have already been shared with applicant through RTI reply.
Allegations being raised by applicant. it is pertinent to mention that false allegations are being raised by applicant on public authority. Information has been provided to applicant as per records available with NABH/ QCI and as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005."
CIC/QCIND/A/2023/139528 "...2. Submissions of NABH/ QCI highlighting facts:
a. Contention of applicant pertaining to non disclosure of documents submitted by Sukhda Hospital, Haryana for obtaining NABH accreditation: through reply to RTI application, applicant was apprised about the role of NABH as an accreditation body and denial of said information. Further it is pertinent to mention that:
I. National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH) is not a regulatory authority, but a voluntary accreditation body and all the requirements and approvals are issued by the concerned state regulatory authorities.
II. Further, NABH a constituent board of Quality Council of India (QCI) as an organization has a limited role of assessments and accreditation. The role of NABH/QCI is limited to give accreditation to the institutes that apply for the same which is based on compliance to the relevant accreditation standards.
III. While performing such roles and functions, information from different hospitals is received under a binding agreement that it will not be disclosed to any person or other institute and thus NABH has a fiduciary relationship with such hospitals. In view of the same, information was denied under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005. IV. Quality Council of India would further like to submit that in one of the previous cases vide case No. CIC/QCIND/A/2019/603503 dated 28th April, 2020 (Mr. Balkishan Sharma V/s CPIO, QCI) in which hospital related information was sought, the decision of CPIO, QCI was upheld by Hon'ble Information Commissioner. (Refer: Annexure- C) b. Clarification sought by applicant pertaining to validity of usage of "multispecialty" word and it's synonym by hospital: applicant had raised interrogative/ interpretative question and sought clarification pertaining Page 8 of 11 to usage of multispecialty word which does not fall within the purview of information as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
It is pertinent to mention here that Multispecialty refers to a healthcare facility, hospital, or clinic that provides medical services across multiple medical specialties under one roof and since it is a common term it was not defined in NABH standards and hence no information could be provided about usage of said term.
b. Information sought pertaining to giving recognition to hospital:
NABH does not give recognition to hospitals. As stated above, NABH is not a regulatory authority but a voluntary accreditation body and accreditation is granted to hospitals based on compliance to the relevant accreditation standards. Hence, applicant was provided with NABH website link where applicant may refer to NABH standards.
c. Apprehension of applicant pertaining to statutory provisions and role of NABH: applicant is referring to various statutory provisions and has stated that the same not being followed by hospital. In this regard, it is hereby apprised that regulatory approvals are not granted by NABH. NABH accreditation is purely voluntary which is as per defined accreditation standards and statutory compliance/ regulatory requirements are to be monitored and ensured by the concerned hospital.
e. Apprehensions and allegations being raised by applicant. False allegations are being raised by applicant against public authority. Information has been provided to applicant as per records available with NABH/ QCI and as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005."
Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that point-wise reply against each RTI application has already been provided to the appellant. He further explained that National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH) is not a regulatory authority, but a voluntary accreditation body and all the requirements and approvals are issued by the concerned State Regulatory Authorities. NABH a constituent board of Quality Council of India (QCI) as an organization has a limited role of assessments for accreditation. The role of NABH/QCI is limited to give accreditation to the institutes that apply for the same which is based on compliance to the relevant accreditation standards. While performing such roles and functions, information from different Page 9 of 11 hospitals is received under a binding agreement that it will not be disclosed to any person or other institute and thus, NABH has a fiduciary relationship with such hospitals. In view of the same, information was denied under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further submitted that if Appellant has any issue with the accreditation of a particular institute, there is a separate procedure that can be followed by taking it up with National Accreditation Board for Certification Bodies (NABCB).
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records finds no infirmity in the replies and as a sequel to it further clarification furnished by the Respondent vide his written submissions dated 17.12.2024, as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Appellant neither appeared during hearing to convert the submissions of the Respondent nor filed any counter arguments to agitate the matter further. Intervention of the Commission is not warranted in these matters.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of the RTI Act, the respondent is directed to provide a copy of his written submissions dated 17.12.2024 of instant cases along with enclosures, free of cost, to the appellant through speed post within one week of the date of receipt of this order.
The appeals are 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 10 of 11 Copy To:
The FAA, Quality Council of India, 2nd Floor, Institution of Engineers Building, B.S. Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)