Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Vinod Kumar Mishra vs Directorate Of General Of Health ... on 25 June, 2021

                                केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.       CIC/DTGHS/A/2019/102314

Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra                                           ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                           ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Directorate General of Health Services
Central Drugs Standard Control Org.,
FDA Bhavan, Kotla Road,
New Delhi

PIO
National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority,
Deptt. Of Pharmaceutical,
YMCA Cultural Central Building,
1, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi

Date of Hearing                           :    24.06.2021
Date of Decision                          :    25.06.2021
Chief Information Commissioner            :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                  :     01.09.2018
PIO replied on                            :     05.10.2018
First Appeal filed on                     :     27.11.2018.
First Appellate Order on                  :     26.12.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on           :     16.01.2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2019 seeking information on the following points:
Page 1 of 4
The PIO vide online reply dated 05.10.2018 following information:
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2018. The FAA vide order dated 26.12.2018 disposed off the appeal with the following observations:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. Several calls made to the Appellant for the audio hearing remained unanswered.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sushanta Sarkar, CPIO and Assistant Drug Controller, CDSCO and Shri Manjesh Porwal, PIO, National Pharmaceutical Page 2 of 4 Pricing Authority participated in the hearing through audio conference. Shri Sarkar reiterated his written submission sent to the Commission vide letter dated 18.06.2021 wherein in addition to the replies available on record a reference was made to the reply of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) dated 16.10.2018 where it was mentioned that NPPA does not maintain any detail of medicines/ samples failed in quality testing by CDSCO and that the RTI application was unnecessarily transferred to them. In the written submission it was also mentioned that all available data with respect to the Not of Standard Quality/ Misbranded/ Spurious products is compiled and published by the CDSCO under the heading of Drug Alert. List of Drug Alerts includes the name of drugs/ cosmetics/ medical devices with batch no, Mfg date, expiry date, mfg address, reason for failure, samples drawn by and sample tested by which is available on the website of CDSCO. However, requisite information related to the price of the medicine is not within the purview of their office hence not maintained with CDSCO. With respect to the indication of drugs, the applicant can refer to Approval and Drugs @CDSCO and important links within CDSCO website. A copy of the above mentioned written submission has been marked to the Appellant.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4