Central Information Commission
Mr.P.Ganesh vs M/O Health & Family Welfare on 23 January, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/X/09/00005/AD
Dated January 23, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Mr.P.Ganesh
Name of the Public Authority : M/o Health & Family Welfare
Background
1. The Appellant filed his RTI application dt.3.6.08 with the CPIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare enclosing various correspondence between himself, one Dr. N. Kalyanasuderam and his advocate . The gist of the communication is whether one Dr. T.K. Narayanan has the qualifications/standards to practice acupuncture or not. The CPIO replied on 9.7.08 stating that in so far as the Central Govt. is concerned, the status of practice in Acupuncture Therapy has already been indicated in the M/o Health & Family Welfare letter No.R.14015/25/96-U&H(R) (PT.) dt.25.11.03 and there is no change in the status as on date. He also added that it is observed from the copies of correspondence exchanged with Govt. of Tamil Nadu that the Director of Medical & Rural Health Services, Chennai has already replied on various points. He also requested the Appellant to raise specific queries, if any, in view of above referred position. The Appellant filed an appeal dt.13.8.08 with the Appellate Authority stating that letters 9.1.04 and 25.3.04 given by the Deputy High Commissioner, Sri Lanka about the qualifications acquired by Dr. T.K. Narayanan, which says that Open University of Sri Lanka does not award this Degree . The Appellate Authority replied on 12.9.08 providing information against the gist of all the documents (as given below) enclosed by the Appellant:
i. What is the minimum qualification/standard for practicing acupuncture?
ii. Whether Dr. T.K. Narayanan can practice acupuncture iii. Whether practice of acupuncture is forbidden by law in Tamil Nadu iv. Whether it is regulated by any statutory body or any other law in Tamil Nadu v. Is there a need for an acupuncturist to get himself registered under IMC or TNMC to practice acupuncture in Tamil Nadu vi. That the police had formed a team to nab a quack who has rendered bad treatment , but the quack has absconded vii. That a case was filed in the High Court at Madras by T.K. Narayanan seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the police from interfering in his peaceful practice of alternate system of medicine viii. That the Open university of Sri Lanka does not award the degree named in letter of E R Narayanan, Advocate ix. That the Open International University, Colombo, is not an accredited Institution by the University Grants Commission x. Letter from Advocate of the Appellant saying that he has never claimed that he is an MBBS Doctor or has practiced allopathic medicine or had given injections. He is a bonafide acupuncturist.
The Appellant then preferred a second appeal before the CIC filed a second appeal dt.7.10.08 before the CIC wanting to know whether Dr.T.K. Narayanan is a boafide acupuncturist or not . He quoted from the Appellate Authority's letter dated 12.9.08 " The Minsitry does look at degrees conferred by other countries in acupuncture and does not check its veracity" stating that this exactly is the bone of contention. His contention is that in the light of the letters sent by the Deputy High Commissioner, Sri Lanka about the qualifications acquired by Dr. T.K. Narayanan, which says that the Open University, Sri Lanka does not award this degree, the Certificate issued by the Open International University, Sri Lanka , Colombo are bogus. He also pointed out an error made in point no x and clarified that it is not his Advocate but it is Dr.T.K. Narayanan's Advocate who had addressed him in the letter.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for January 23, 2009.
3. Mr. M.M. Lal, CPIO And Dy. Secy and Ms. Shalini Prasad, Joint Secretary represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing. Decision
5. The Respondents submitted that they had provided all the information available with them on the subject. The Appellate Authority referred to the Appellant's quote in the second appeal, from her letter dated 12 9.08, and pointed out that a typographical error had been made and that the statement in her letter should be read as follows: "The Ministry does not look at degrees conferred by other countries in acupuncture and does not check its veracity" and that the word 'not' was missing . She said that she would convey information about this error to the Appellant at the earliest.
6. The Commission holds that all available information has been provided by the Public Authority and suggests that the Appellant approach an appropriate grievance redressal form with regard to his contention that the degree of Dr. Narayanan is bogus.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer Cc:
1. Mr.P.Ganesh 23/108, Sri Ayyappa Nagar First main Road Chennai 600 092
2. The CPIO Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Nirman Bhavan New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Nirman Bhavan New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC