Central Information Commission
Smt.Shalini Kumari vs Medical Council Of India on 20 January, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003308/16993
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003308
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mrs. Shalini Kumar
203/9 Sadar Bazzar
Muzzafarnagar
Up-251001
Respondent : Mr. Shikhar Ranjan
CPIO & Law Officer MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Packet- 14, Sector-8.
Dwarka, New Delhi-110077
RTI application filed on : 09/06/2011
PIO replied : 21/07/2011
First Appeal : 16/08/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 07/10/2011
Second Appeal received on : 18/11/2011
Information Sought:
1. Can doctor ask patient to take medicines from the particular medical store. If yes , then according which rule ?
2. Has the doctor right to describe any licensee medical store as sub standard despite the fact that the same branded medicines are available in those so called substandard stores.
3. The doctors recommend the brand name instead of salt and force patients to buy those medicines only from particular stores. If any other stores keeps those branded medicines and display the information 'the medicines of the ABC (name) receipt is also available here' then is there anything wrong with this kind of practice.
4. If the patient has paid the fee of the doctor then why he can't buy the medicines from the other stores.
5. If the above mentioned rules violate the rules regulations of the MCI then what action can be taken on these cases?
Reply of the CPIO:
• As per section 2(f) of the RTI act the views expressed by you are advice not information. However, according to MCI, 2002 act.
" the doctor can not run an open medical stores where the medicines are sold or the medicines sold which are suggested by the others or sale of the equipments (surgical/medical) . However, supply of the medicines, direction of the diagnosis and equipments is not immoral provided that the patients are not used for self fish interests. Doctors have to write the generic names, the formulas of the purchased medicines."
• If there is any complain about the medical negligence then matters is refer to state medical council where the particular doctor had been working.
Page 1 of 2Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is incomplete, misleading and unsatisfactory.
Order of the FAA:
FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO .
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mrs. Shalini Kumar on video conference from NIC-Muzaffarnagar Studio; Respondent: Mr. Shikhar Ranjan, CPIO & Law Officer; and Mr. Arun Kumar, Section Officer;
The Appellant has sought most queries relating to Medical Ethics. The PIO has given the relevant provisions of the code of medical ethics as ordained by the Indian Medical Council. However, these do not cover the specific queries sought by the Appellant. The PIO cannot give his own opinion about this.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
What is being sought is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 20 January 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PRE) Page 2 of 2