Central Information Commission
Mr. Balbir Singh vs Department Of Health, Chandigarh, ... on 19 March, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2009/000998
Dated March 21, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Mr. Balbir Singh
Name of the Public Authority : Department of Health,
Chandigarh, Haryana
ADJUNCT TO ORDER DATED 02.12.2009
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application on 14.3.09 with the Chief Secretary,
Government of Haryana seeking the copy of a new convening order canceling the old
convening order, besides copy of billing details and comments from the SEMO/Dy.
Commdt. Command Hospital with respect to his complaint dated 03.07.2008. The
information was sought in connection with his complaint against suspected
interference in the treatment of his mother Mrs. Harbhajan Kaur. The CPIO, Health
Department, Chandigarh Administration requested the Complainant vide his letter
dated 7.4.09 to deposit a sum of Rs.50/- for information. This was followed by a letter
to the Complainant from the CPIO , Health Department, GMSH, Chandigarh dated
21.4.09 informing the Complainant that the complaint was received in his office from
the on 16.4.09 and that it was forwarded to the Committee constituted under the
Chairmanship of Dr. Raj Bahadur, the then M.S. PGI, Chandigarh and that the
Committee had submitted its report vide letter dated 21.4.08 but no other documents
including list of papers/films/bills were found enclosed with the enquiry report. The
CPIO enclosed a copy of the enquiry report alongwith the copies of documents
forwarded to the Committee. Having provided all the information available with him,
the CPIO drew the attention of the Complainant to the fact that he (CPIO) is not
expected to discuss/review the matter further with any authority as requested by the
Complainant by his letter dated 13.4.09.
2. Being aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO, the Complainant filed his first appeal with
Dr. M.S. Bains, Director, Health & Family Welfare cum Appellate Authority on 1.6.09
expressing his surprise at the non-listing of his complaint dated 6.4.07 in the list of
documents presented to the Committee chaired by Dr. Raj Bahadur, especially in the
light of the fact that documents 1 to 4 submitted to the Committee bear reference of
the repeated misplaced above mentioned complaint. He contended that ordinarily any
enquiry committee would have asked for the missing links including the and initial
complaint, especially after perusing documents 1 to 4 instead of giving inconclusive
verdict after about one year. He added that apprehending destruction of evidence, he
had retained the X-ray film (showing hairline fracture) which was not even called for
verification/viewing. Dr. M.S. Bains, the Appellate Authority Health Department,
Chandigarh Administration in his Order dated 16.6.09 informed the Complainant that
the CPIO, Health Department GMSH-16 has already supplied 5 pages of information
vide memo dated 6.4.09 and also pointed out that the Complainant was asked to
appear before him on 16.6.09 but he (Complainant) had preferred an application
dated 11.6.09 received by courier. The Appellate Authority decided that since the
Complainant had not demanded any information as defined under Section 2(f) of the
RTI Act, 2005, no directions can be given to the CPIO by him and also that the CPIO
had already explained his position in the case. Being aggrieved with this reply, the
Complainant preferred a complaint before the CIC on 9.9.09 stating that the impugned order of
the First Appellate Authority was silent on what was being prayed repeatedly, and that it
erroneously refers to the CPI memo which was an open and shut case. He questioned why if
all the information has been provided vide memo dated 6.4.09, on the very next day
he was asked to pay Rs. 50/- . While admitting that he had not asked for any
information in the first appeal, he pointed out that his appeal was loaded with his
lamentations about prolonged, persistent concealment of his complaint dated 6.4.07.
He alleged that the Respondent not only skipped mention /perusal of his main
complaint but has also provided a clean chit to the accused hospital/Doctor unofficially to evade prosecution. The Complainant prayed that provisions of the RTI Act 2005 be invoked to conduct an enquiry into the matter related to alleged abetting/blackmailing/ bribing of Respondents/enquiry officers.
3. The Commission received a letter dated 27.10.09 from the Complainant requesting for early adjudication of the matter. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 25, 2009.
4. Shri Ajit Singh, Superintendent, and Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Senior Assistant represented the Department of Health, Chandigarh, Haryana.
5. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
6. The Respondent submitted that the Appellate Authority had disposed off the appeal after taking into consideration the facts on record including the Complainant's complaint dated 6.4.07 which was received by the Public Authority through the Advisor to the Administrator to whom it was addressed on 20.4.07. He stated that the complaint remained under the consideration of the Public Authority for constitution of the Committee from 24.4.07 onwards and that after constitution of the Committee at the Government level to enquire into the matter vide order dated 18.7.07, the complaint was sent to Dr. Raj Bahadur, the then M.S. PGI, Chandigarh vide letter dated 26.7.07. The Respondent added that the Complaint dated 6.4.07 remained untraceable and could not be traced is not true. He further pointed out that the Appellate Authority's decision was based on the enquiry report dated 21.4.08 submitted by the Committee of Doctors on the basis of documents furnished along with the complaint dated 6.4.07. Explaining further, the Respondent stated that the Public Authority while producing the documents before the Committee only produced pages 1 to 5, which were a part of the same complaint, and inadvertently left out the complaint. This mistake, however, was later rectified and the final enquiry report by the Committee was definitely based on the complaint dated 6.4.07 which was sent to them on a later date. The Respondent stressed on the fact that the complaint dated 6.4.07 was never lost and that a copy of the same can be provided to the Complainant.
7. On perusal of the submissions on record, the Commission observed that due to oversight, the complaint dated 6.4.07 was not initially put up to the Committee of Doctors. However, as explained by the CPIO, it seems that the mistake was rectified and that the complaint was forwarded to the Committee of Doctors on a later date who prepared the enquiry report after taking into consideration the contents of the complaint. It was also noted that the contention of the Respondent has been refuted by the Appellant who is convinced that his complaint was not given due consideration by the Committee since it was either lost or kept away from the Committee with malafide intentions. The Commission, therefore, was of the opinion that the issue to be resolved was whether the complaint dated 6.4.07, lodged by the Complainant, has really been taken into consideration or not while preparing the enquiry report.
8. In view of the complaint to the Commission preferred by the Complainant and also his prayer that the Commission enquire into the matter, the Commission, in view of the powers conferred on it under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, deputed a senior officer of the Commission to visit the office of the Public Authority, and in the presence of the Complainant, look into the matter and furnish an enquiry report to the Commission before end January, 2010.
9. Pursuant to and in terms of the directions of the Commission, the Deputy Registrar, of the Commission, Mr. G Subramaniam, visited Chandigarh on 27th January 2010 to inquire into the issue under provisions of the Section 18(2) of the RTI Act 2005. The prime issue to be investigated was whether the complaint dated 06.04.07, lodged by the Complainant with the Respondent, had indeed been taken into consideration while preparing the Enquiry report by the Committee of Doctors. For this purpose inspection of various documents to ascertain that accurate information had been provided; investigation of the alleged defects in Stamp paper, particularly the allegedly forged signatures of the deponent and Magistrate etc. were done during the Inquiry by the Dy. Registrar. It has been noted from perusal of the file of the Director Health and Family Welfare that the complaints of the Appellant herein including the complaint dated 06.04.07 had been forwarded to the Committee, constituted by the order dated 18.07.07 passed by the Chandigarh Administration Health Department for submission of its report to DHS. The complaint dated 06.04.07 had been forwarded on 26.07.07, though there was no mention of the complaint date on the forwarding letter. While addressing the doubts of the Appellant about date of receipt of his complaint dated 06.04.07 in the Director's office, the Respondent clarified that the said complaint (dated 06.04.07) addressed to the MD, Mukat Hospital among others and received by the Respondent from the JS, Health on 19.04.07, was forwarded to the appropriate Branch on 20.04.07 and received therein by the dealing Assistant on 23.04.07. This fact has been verified from the original records. The complaint dated 06.04.07 of the Appellant alongwith the forwarding letter dated 26.07.07 bearing Serial numbers 2 to 4 were found on record in the file alongside the communications dated 19th June and 23rd January 2007 bearing serial numbers 5 to 8. In view of the serial wise numbering on each document, the scope of manipulation of documents seems nonexistent.
10. The Inquiry also dealt with the allegation of the Appellant regarding perjury in the affidavit submitted by the Respondent and the forged signature of the deponent viz. Dr. Raj Bahadur, Director Principal of GMCH. The Respondent orally submitted that the Stamp paper in question had been acquired from e-Sampark Centre and that the "Project Sampark is a Department of IT (DIT) initiative" therefore the validity/ authenticity of the Stamp paper was unbelievable. However, the enquiry into the authenticity of the Stamp paper does not fall within the ambit of this Enquiry nor within the jurisdiction of the RTI Act and hence no finding or observation from the Commission is required on the same. The deponent who had sworn the Affidavit dated 27.11.2009, i.e. Dr. Raj Bahadur, Director Principal of GMCH affirmed the signature to be his. However, the Affidavit from a bare perusal revealed that the same was incomplete in as much as the Date and Place of swearing the same was not mentioned. The Respondent stated that having been obtained at Chandigarh, the Affidavit could have been sworn only at Chandigarh and accordingly the same has been done. At the Appellant's contention that the Magistrate's stamp did not bear the name nor the round seal contained his initials, the Executive Magistrate, UT, Chandigarh, Sh. R S Verma confirmed in writing that he had attested the Affidavit on 27.11.2009, received by fax and followed by a copy through post and that the signature were his, acting in his capacity as an Executive Magistrate, producing a copy of the order dated 06.07.2005 whereby he had been appointed Executive Magistrate in terms of the provisions of Section 20 of the Cr.PC, 1973.
11. The Enquiry further dealt with the allegation of the Appellant that Dr. M S Bains had signed the letter with 'for' symbol despite being the concerned officer. Upon being questioned, Dr. M S Bains stated that the symbol misinterpreted as 'for' by the Appellant was actually the symbol for 'office copy'. This submission of the Respondent was verified and found correct as per the records. Therefore the statement of Dr. Bains was found to be accurate. The Respondent confirmed that the complaint of the Appellant regarding the "fudgy functioning" at Mukut Hospital had been forwarded vide letter dated 26.07.2007 to the Committee constituted by the Chandigarh Administration, Health Department vide its letter dated 18.07.07. The said Committee was also directed to "provide its expert opinion to the Department of Home Affairs and to the Police Department in cases of death of a patient admitted to a Hospital or Nursing Home in the UT, Chandigarh".
12. The records produced by GMCH and noting of the file of DHS, Chandigarh clearly indicate that the Appellant's complaint dated 06.04.2007, placed at Serial number 3 in the file produced by GMCH, as noted above had been taken into consideration by the Committee while preparing the Enquiry report, as also confirmed by Dr. Raj Bahadur and Dr. Atul Sachdev.
13. The Enquiry conducted by the Deputy Registrar of the Central Information Commission has dealt with all the aspects of the case in details and the same is taken on record. Since the apprehension of the Appellant has now been addressed in complete details, the case merits no further consideration and is hereby closed.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Asst. Registrar Cc:
1. Lt. Col. Balbir Singh (Retd) S/o Late Shri Lal Singh H.No. 82, Kapil Vihar Sector 21 C, Faridabad (Haryana)
2. The Public Information Officer Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Chandigarh Administration Health Department GMSH, Sector-16 Chandigarh (U.T.)
3. The Appellate Authority Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Chandigarh Administration Health Department GMSH, Sector-16 Chandigarh (U.T.)
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC