Central Information Commission
Ca Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Health And Family Welfare Department on 29 August, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागगं नाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/HAFWD/A/2021/642692-UM
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO,
SMO Incharge, EWS Branch DGHS
HQ, Directorate General Of
Health Services Govt. of NCT
of Delhi 3rd Floor , S-1
school Block Shakurpur
Delhi-110092
The CPIO
Directorate of Health
Services, F - 17 Karkardooma
Delhi - 110051
....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.08.2022
Date of Decision : 29.08.2022
Date of RTI application 03.04.2021
CPIO's response 28.04.2021
Date of the First Appeal 29.04.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 09.06.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 14.09.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on following points:
Page 1 of 6The CPIO vide letter dated 28.04.2021 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal.The FAA vide order dated09.06.2021 directed the PIO, EWS Branch to ensure proper reply for remaining information pertaining to his branch and compliance report is to be submitted. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.Page 2 of 6
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: The appellant attended the hearing in person. Respondent: The respondent Dr. Raghuraj Singh, PIO, EWS and Dr. Virender Kumar, Nodal Officers, PIO (RTI), DGHS attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that incomplete, false, and misleading information was provided by the CPIO. The appellant further stated that all the information sought pertains to a larger public interest and hence it should be provided. Further, He stated that he had sought Complete Court Records related to unjust enrichments by the said hospitals but had been given to date only certain daily orders. Further, the appellant informed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had directed the private hospitals that they were given land on concessional rates by land-owning agencies of Delhi to provide free treatment to eligible patients of EWS category but the Hospitals are not providing free care or treatment to the patients. Lastly, he stated that Complete Records of the Qureshi Committee, N.N. Khanna Committee, and Maninder Acharya Committee were also not received by him from the respondent.
The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. The respondent further stated that in the year 2002, a PIL was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi W.P.(C ) No. 2866/2002 titled Social Jurist Vs. GNCTD & Ors. And Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 22.03.2007 directed the private hospitals that were given land on concessional rates by land-owning agencies of Delhi, to provide free treatment to eligible patients of EWS category to the extent of 10% IPD and 25% of total OPD free of any charges and constituted Special Committee for implementing its directions. Further, the respondent informed that the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment also directed that audit of these private hospitals must be carried out regarding the free treatment provided by them to the EWS category of patients since the allotment of the land. CAG was requested to allot Chartered Page 3 of 6 Accountants to carry out the audit of these hospitals in 2012 which was completed in 2012-13 and audit reports were shared with the concerned hospitals along with the unwarranted profit earned by the hospital and if, any recovery is to be made. The following 20 hospitals were respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this case.
i) Fortis Escort Heart Institute ii) Dharamshila Cancer hospital iii) Max Devki Devi hospital iv) Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute v) Shanti Mukand hospital vi) VIMHANS vii) Amar Jyoti hospital viii) Max Smart hospital ix) Indian Spinal Injuries Centre x) Deepak Memorial hospital xi) Saroj hospital xii) Arya Kottakal Vaidhyashala xiii) Venu Eye hospital xiv) Max Balaji hospital xv) Jaipur Golden hospital xvi) National Heart Institute xvii) Bhagwati hospital xviii) Mai Kamli Wali hospital xix) Bimla Devi Charitable hospital xx) Primus hospital
Moreover, He stated that the Special Committee in its meeting dated 20.10.2015 decided that recovery of unwarranted profits shall be made from the following five hospitals for the time being.Page 4 of 6
i) Fortis Escort Heart Institute ii) Dharamshila Cancer hospital iii) Max Devki Devi hospital iv) Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute v) Shanti Mukand hospital
Above mentioned all five cases are Subjudice in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the last hearing was held in January 2020, he said.
Furthermore, the respondent informed that the copies of all the five files pertaining to the recovery of unwarranted profit from above mentioned five private hospitals and two files of the Special Committee, which is looking after this recovery matter, have been provided to the appellant in digital format (CD/DVD) on 30.12.2021 in compliance to the order of First Appellate Authority, DGHS in RTI Number DROHS/R/2021/60123 dated 03.04.2021 filed by the same applicant.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by all the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission agrees with the submission of the appellant that the matter pertains to larger public interest. Further, the submissions of the respondent also admissible that despite furnishing all information to the appellant, he is still not satisfied.
In view of the above, the Commission directs the CPIO, DGHS & DHS to seek clarification on his RTI queries from the appellant within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also advises the appellant to specify the precise queries and information sought, and the period of the information. After receiving the clarification from the appellant, the respondent shall provide the information strictly in keeping with the spirit of transparency and accountability as Page 5 of 6 enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सच ू ना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 29.08.2022 GS Page 6 of 6