Subhash Chand vs Central Government Health Service ... on 26 September, 2024

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Subhash Chand vs Central Government Health Service ... on 26 September, 2024

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                    के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CGHSD/A/2023/649842

Shri Subhash Chand                                             ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, CGHS                                                  ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                         :   18.09.2024
Date of Decision                        :   24.09.2024
Chief Information Commissioner          :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :          18.06.2023
PIO replied on                    :          NA
First Appeal filed on             :          02.09.2023
First Appellate Order on          :          NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :          30.10.2023

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

"Respected Sir, I have submitted online information seeking some information in respect of CGHS/CSMA Rules 1944.

1. Please provide a certified copy of consultation fee for OPD treatment in Authorised Private Hospital,

2. Whether the consultation has been enhanced recently, if yes, please provide a copy of OM in respect of enhancement of consultation fee.

3. Whether consultation fee of Authorised Medical Attendance has also revised/enhancement. if yes, please provide certified copy of the same."

Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within the time limit, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 10.09.2024 has been received from the CPIO stating that the RTI application and First Appeal had not been received earlier, but information has now been provided vide reply dated 06.09.2024, stating as under:

Page 1 of 2

1. Revision of Consultation Fee. Room Rent and ICU charge for all health care organization empanelled under CGHS as per CGHS OM No. Z15025/28/ 2022/DIR/CGHS dated 12.04.2023.(copy enclosed)

2. Yes. (copy enclosed)

3. This question is related to EHS Section, Nirman Bhawan.

A copy of the written submission has already been sent to the Appellant. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Dr. Srinivas Murthy - CMO(NFSG) was present during hearing.

The Respondent reiterated contents of the written submission dated 10.09.2024 mentioned hereinabove and submitted that point wise response has now been sent to the Appellant vide letter dated 06.09.2024. The Appellant pointed out the delay in furnishing of response and that though the query number 3 related to EHS Section, the Respondent has not bothered to transfer the matter to the relevant PIO, in terms of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing submissions averments of the Respondent, it is evident that the Respondent has sent a belated reply vide letter dated 06.09.2024.

It is noted that the written submission dated 10.09.2024 filed by the Respondent before the Commission contains comprehensive and self explanatory information and copy of the same has also been sent to the Appellant.

In the given circumstances, it is strongly recommended that the Respondent must take necessary steps to ensure that the technical lapse which is preventing receiving of the RTI application and the First Appeal is rectified at the earliest. Considering the fact that the Respondent has sent appropriate reply based on records available with the public authority, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission