Central Information Commission
Hukam Chand vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 22 September, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/BSNLD/A/2019/102300
In the matter of:
Hukam Chand
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
BSNL, RTI Cell, Office of GM Telecom,
Haryana Telecom Circle, Ambala,
107, Mahtama Gandhi Marg, Ambala Cantt-133001
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 27/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 24/10/2018 First appeal filed on : 06/11/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 12/12/2018 Second Appeal dated : 16/01/2019 Date of Hearing : 22/09/2020 Date of Decision : 22/09/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Mahesh Kumar, Asst. Director RTI, Representative of CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he has not received satisfactory information on points No. 2, 3, and 4 of his RTI application, which are stated below. The information sought is pertaining to the reimbursement of the medical bill submitted by him:1
2. Photocopy of the agreement between BSNL and the Primus Hospital, New Delhi, having validation in the year 2016 and BSNL approved rate/package for both total knee replacement treatment for NABH Accredited hospital and NO NABH Accredited Hospital during the year 2016.
3. Whether the o/o CGMT Haryana circle Ambala Cantt acknowledges the BSNL, CHQ issued letter bearing no. BSNL/Admin - 1/15-I/17 dated 25/10/2017.
4. Whether the amount reimbursed to the appellant has been as per the CGHS rates for NABH Accredited hospital during the year 2016 for the medical treatment of both total knee replacement.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided incomplete and incorrect information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant stated that information given was wrong. Further, if the agreement was availabale in the corporate office, it should have been obtained and given to him.
The representative of the CPIO reiterated the submissions given in the reply dated 24.10.2018 and informed that whatever was available regarding this matter has been given to the appellant. Infact, his entire medical reimbursement file with notings and correspondence consisting of 53 pages has been given to him alongwith the reply.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the following reply was given by the CPIO vide letter dated 24.10.2018 :
"2. The agreement between BSNL and the Primus Hospital New Delhi was made by Corporate office, New Delhi. So not available with this office.
3. Letter mentioned in point no. 3 is not available either on BSNL CHQ website or in section.
4. The amount of the bill has been approved to the applicant as per BSNL MRS guidelines and this has already been intimated to concerned vide letter no. Accts/Med/ID/Hukam Chand/Retd/AD/RTK/SSA/12 dtd 18.08.2018"2
The FAA vide order dated 12.12.2018 had upheld the CPIO's reply. The Commission after going through the reply has found that the reply in respect of point no. 2 was erroneous as in case the information was available with corporate office, the CPIO should have obtained the same u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act or should have transferred the RTI application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the Corporate office for providing a reply. In respect of point no. 3 the respondent has clearly stated that such a letter is not available so cannot be provided. With regard to point no. 4 of the reply, it has been adequately answered. Moreover, the information sought in points no. 3 & 4 of the RTI application are interrogatory in nature and the appellant is seeking clarification and hence as such these are not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, as raised by the appellant, efforts should be made to provide him with a copy of the agreement between BSNL and Primus hospital by taking assistance under Sec 5(4) of the RTI Act from the Corporate office.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the respondent is directed to take assistance under Sec 5(4) of the Act from the corporate office with regard to point no.2 and obtain the copy of the agreement and send it to the appellant within 15 days from the date of issue of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 3