Central Information Commission
Amulya Kumar Panda vs Tata Memorial Centre on 23 March, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/TMCTR/A/2018/161208
Shri Amulya Kumar Panda ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Tata Memorial Centre, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Tata Memorial Hospital,
Parel, Mumbai- 400012
Through: Dr. Vineet Samant - Asstt. Supdt. and
Mr. Vinayak Indad
Date of Hearing : 22.03.2021
Date of Decision : 23.03.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.07.2018
PIO replied on : 03.08.2018
First Appeal filed on : 27.08.2018
First Appellate Order on : 07.09.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 08.10.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.07.2018seeking: a)summary of account details in respect of CJ/00712 of Late Mrs. Sujata Panda, W/o Col A K Panda from 01.06.2015 to 31.03.2017; b) How many MRCP conducted from 01.06.2016 to 31.09.2016 in respect of Late Mrs. Sujata Panda and c) PTBD notes, USG Vascular study, MRI diffusion study of late Mrs. Sujata Panda while admitted on 10.08.2016. Treatment bills had not been cleared due to observations by Ex-servicemen contributory health scheme of MoD.
The CPIO, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 03.08.2018 as under:
"In this regard, please note that these are personal medical information related to third party, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Hence, under Section 8(1) (j) there shall be no obligation to disclose these information."Page 1 of 2
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.08.2018. The FAA vide order dated 07.09.2018 observed that information had been furnished.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 18.03.2021, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant has not attended the video conference while Respondent was present for the virtual hearing. On being asked by the Commission, the reasoning behind denial of information about medical treatment of the deceased wife of the Appellant, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the Respondent agreed to furnish information, if so directed by the Bench.
Decision:
In the light of the facts of the case, the Commission finds that the PIO's reply is flawed and sets aside the same as it is opposed to the spirit of the Act per se. The lack of application of mind by the FAA has only added to the inappropriateness of the order.
Under the circumstances, the PIO is hereby directed to furnish complete information to the Appellant as permissible under the Act, within three weeks of receipt of this order. A copy of the compliance report in this regard should to be submitted before the Commission by 30.04.2021, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated as per law.
The appeal is thus disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2