Central Information Commission
Rabindra Nath vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation Hq on 5 April, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Complaints Nos. CIC/NDMCH/C/2017/144582
CIC/DHNCT/C/2017/154180/DHSDH
Shri Rabindra Nath ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
1. PIO/ Chief Medical Officer (Medical & TB) ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
NDMC, Health Deptt., E-Block, 12th Floor,
Dr. SPM Civic Centre, Minto Raod,
NewDelhi-110002.
2. C.A.M.O/K.B Zone, NDMC, Health Deptt.,
Karol Bagh, Nigam Bhawan, D.B. Gupta
Road, Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005
Through: Dr. Anil Bhatia - CAMO, Karol Bagh
Zone and Dr. G Srinivas-GDMO-II
Date of Hearing : 04.04.2019
Date of Decision : 04.04.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
144582 17.05.2017 14.06.2017 Nil Nil
154180 17.05.2017 Nil 28.06.2017 25.07.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/NDMCH/C/2017/144582 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.05.2017, seeking information on seven points regarding treatment of employees of MCD in empanelled hospitals and medical reimbursement and other related information.Page 1 of 3
PIO/CMO(Medical & TB) vide letter dated 14.06.2017 provided point wise information to the Complainant stating that provisions of CSMA Rules are followed for such treatment of the employees and for further details against query no. 4, applicant may inspect the records.
Being dissatisfied with the response, the Complainant filed this complaint before the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Respondent is absent in this case, while the complainant states that he had raised similar queries in this case and in the next one. Hence they may be adjudicated together.
CIC/DHNCT/C/2017/154180/DHSDH The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.05.2017, seeking information on seven points regarding treatment of employees of MCD in empanelled hospitals and medical reimbursement and other related information.
Upon non-receipt of any reply from the PIO, the Complainant filed the First Appeal dated 27.06.2017. This led to a meeting being held at the office of the CMO and the FAA/Addl. DHA (Medical & TB) vide order dated 25.07.2017 directed the CAMO, KB Zone to furnish the reply within 7 days to the applicant as per the available records.
PIO/Chief Administration Officer, Karol Bagh Zone, N.D.M.C vide letter dated 18.05.2017 provided some information to the Complainant, which was found unsatisfactory by the Complainant.
Hence, he filed the instant complaint before the Commission. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present in this case. Complainant has stated that he received the response from PIO, only after filing of the First Appeal on 25.07.2017. Being an employee of MCD, he claimed that the ill-treatment meted out to him (and his wife) has caused him great anguish which led to filing of these two complaints. He explained that when they approached the respondents for medical reimbursement, they were denied the benefits under CGHS policies. Thus the irregularity in implementation of the rules and policies with respect to medical benefits is challenged by him in these two complaints before the Commission.
Respondent states that the queries raised by the Complainant are all related to medical reimbursement given to MCD employees, information about which is available on the website and in consonance with CGHS rules. Respondent Page 2 of 3 explains that though the policies of CGHS are followed by and large with respect to referring patients to outside doctors/hospitals, the medical clinics of MCD are manned by competent doctors who provide necessary treatments. However, sometimes owing to financial crunch faced by MCD, cashless treatment is not extended to MCD employees by private hospitals.
Decision:
Upon hearing averments of both parties and perusal of records, the position so emerges that information as such has been provided by the Respondent and complainant is not unaware of the facts, being himself an employee of the MCD. It appears that the complainant having faced certain personal harassment, is aggrieved with the non-implementation of CGHS policies in totality, for medical reimbursement to MCD employees. Though the Commission is of the opinion that such cases deserve sensitive and empathetic treatment, yet the fact which cannot be overlooked is that the issue falls outside the purview of RTI Act to address the grievance of the complainant with respect to policies and implementation thereof by the public authority. The Complainant admits that information as available on public records have been provided by the respondent but implementation of the policies in letter and spirit is an administrative decision which cannot be enforced by the RTI Act.
Both the cases are thus disposed off with a recommendation that the North Delhi Municipal Corporation may treat such cases with due sensitivity and take appropriate remedial measures to improve the delivery of health care to its employees.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 3