Central Information Commission
Akhilesh Tripathi vs Quality Council Of India on 23 January, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/QCIND/A/2022/109776
Akhilesh Tripathi ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Quality Council of India, RTI
Cell,2nd Floor, Institution of
Engineers Building, 2-Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/01/2023
Date of Decision : 18/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 16/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 22/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 04/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15/02/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2021 seeking the following information:
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 16.12.2021 stating as under- -
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.12.2021. FAA's order dated 04.02.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Dr Hari Prakash, Director & CPIO along with Deepti Mohan, APIO present through intra-video conference At the outset, the Appellant contested about the alleged medical negligence and corrupt practices followed in NABH while granting accreditation to the various Hospitals. Further, he raised an issue regarding charging of unreasonable amount from the patients during admission by these accredited Hospitals and emphasized on the unfair practices prevalent in these said hospitals in the appointment of the doctors who apparently do not fulfil the eligibility criteria. He further went on to add that in fact, he had encountered such practises while working with these Hospitals, and therefore, to set right these wrongs, he has sought the intervention of the Commission. He further harped on the action/inaction of the Respondent' as their officials misbehaved with him on phone calls on the ground that he has sought such information under RTI. Furthermore, since these hospitals receive funds/ grants/ aid form the exchequer therefore, information more particularly the documents submitted by these hospitals for getting NABH accreditation should be provided in public interest. In this regard, the Commission counselled the Appellant that such issues do not fall under the mandate of RTI Act.
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 11.01.2023 and further made the arguments on the following lines -
"....a. Whatever information as was available with NABH/ QCI and could be provided under RTI Act, 2005 was provided to applicant by CPIO, QCI as well as FAA, QCI.
b. It is pertinent to mention here that National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH) is a constituent board of Quality Council of India (QCI). NABH is not a regulatory authority, but a voluntary accreditation body. As an organization, NABH has a limited role of assessments and accreditation. While performing such roles and functions, we receive information from different hospitals under an agreement and thus have a fiduciary relationship with such hospitals. Hence, it would not be proper to disclose the personal/ third party information which is shared with NABH, QCI under a binding agreement without their consent.
Accordingly, NABH had invited third parties (10 private hospitals, applicant has incorrectly mentioned as 11) to make submissions regarding disclosure of information of hospitals. In view of the submissions made by the concerned hospitals denying disclosure of any information provided to NABH (as it is a privileged information provided to NABH for the purpose of accreditation), reply was provided to applicant.
Also, documents submitted by hospitals are confidential and the same has been mentioned under non-disclosure document category on QCI website under the following link: https://qcin.org/public/uploads/ck- docs/Statement%20of%20the%20categories%20oP/020documente/020held%20o r%20 under%20control.pdf.
xxx iv. .... applicant has desired documents submitted by hospitals (10 hospitals) quoting corrupt practices followed in various hospitals. However, NABH/ QC hereby submits that:
a. NABH/ QCI is not a regulatory authority, but a voluntary accreditation body. b. AN the requirements and approvals are given by the concerned state regulatory authority c. Hence, if applicant has grievance against any hospital, he may approach concerned state regulatory authority.
d. However, NABH/ QCI follows transparency in providing information as and when sought by any person. Further, maximum information is disclosed in Public Domain on websites of respective boards of QCI or main QCI website under RTI Mandatory enclosure link....
e. It is pertinent to mention few of CIC cases through which NABH/ QCI would like to submit that information as provided to applicant is in comp lance of RID Act, 2005 vide case vide File No. CIC/QCIN IA020)19103506 dated 12th March, 2020, in the case of Mr. Balkishan Sharma Ills CP10, Quality Council of India-
• Applicant had sought information pertaining to documents of one of the hospital from NABH. As per submissions made by QCI and decision of Hon'ble CIC vide decision no. CIC/QCIND/A/2019/603506/03315 dated 28th April, 2020, Commission upheld the submissions of CPIO. Further it was stated "applicant is, however, advised to approach the concerned state government who as per the submissions of the CPIO is the custodian of the desired information as it is the state government that gives approval to the various institutes/ hospitals". (Refer: Annexure-1).
• CIC case vide File No. CIC/QCIND/14/202216224;2 dated 16th August, 2022 in the case of Mr. Manu V/s CPIO, Quality Council of Applicant had sought details pertaining to services, scope of services and details of staff (along with educational qualification) working in the concerned hospitals. As per submissions made by QCI and decision of Hon'ble CIC vide decision no. CIC/QCIND/A/2022/622482 dated 23rd August, 2022, Commission upheld the submissions of CP10 and advised appellant to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative channel. (Refer: Annexure-2).."
Lastly, the Appellant interjected and restricted his claim for information to the extent of only copies of the consent/objection letters received by the CPIO under Section 11 of RTI Act from these averred Hospitals; to facilitate him to file proper complaints with the concerned authorities with these supportive documents.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information as much it is about the redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding alleged corrupt practices followed in NABH while granting accreditation to the Hospitals.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO adequately suffices the information sought for in the instant RTI Application as per the provisions of RTI Act.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding unreasonable amount charged from the patients during admission by the accredited Hospitals is purely a matter of grievance which is not amenable under the RTI Act. In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the factual reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO through his latest written submission is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In view of the above, no action is warranted in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative channel.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहा न)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /