Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1447
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, J
Mohd Azim Khan – Appellant
Versus
Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital – Respondent
CIC/BJRMH/A/2023/650817
Personal information, including medical records, is protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and disclosure requires demonstration of overriding public interest.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Denial of information regarding Medical Legal Case (MLC) of a third party - The appellant sought information about the MLC of his wife, which was denied on grounds of privacy and personal information exemption - The Commission upheld the denial, emphasizing the protection of personal information under the RTI Act. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Privacy Rights - The court reiterated that personal records, including medical information, are protected from disclosure unless a larger public interest is demonstrated. (Paras 59)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking details about his wife's MLC at a hospital, which was partially denied citing privacy concerns.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the information sought was appropriately denied as it pertained to personal information of a third party, which is exempt under the RTI Act.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant had the locus standi to request the information and if the denial was justified under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that personal information is protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and the appellant did not demonstrate any overriding public interest.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
1. “Did my wife, Mrs. Rukhsar Farheen, undergo any Medical Legal Case (MLC) procedure at Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital on either August 16, 2018, or August 17, 2018? Please provide comprehensive details regarding this matter.
2. If such an incident did occur, kindly furnish a photocopy of the MLC report.
3. Please furnish a Brief History of MLC of Mrs. Rukhsar Farheen.
4. Please furnish a detailed account of the circumstances that led to Mrs. Rukhsar Farheen becoming an MLC patient? Additionally, specify the name and official position of the police officer who authorized the MLC.
5. Kindly provide the names of the doctor and the DMC Number of responsible for conducting the MLC.
6. Please furnish a comprehensive report outlining the treatment administered to Mrs. Rukhsar Farheen during her hospitalization and any diagnostic tests that were conducted. Additionally, provide photocopies of all relevant documents.”
The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.10.2023 stating as under:
1. REPLY OF QUERY NO.01 – THE MLC No. 159630 has been registered with the name of RUKSHAR FARHEEN in the Casualty on 16/08/2018.
2. REPLY OF QUERY NO.02 – THE MLC copy can not be given other than the patient.
3. REPLY OF QUERY NO. 03 – Personal information of the patient can not be divulged to third party.
4. REPLY OF QUERY NO. 04 – It is a Matter of police investigation.
5. REPLY OF QUERY NO. 05 – Dr. Avinash Tripathi and Dr. Aquil Raja DMC no. can not be provided.
6. REPLY OF QUERY NO. 06 – Treatment and diagnostic details can not be given as it is a personal information.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 27.10.2023, held as under.
“Hearing before the First Appellate Authority was scheduled for 26/10/2023 at 12.00 Noon. The appeal was conducted as scheduled. Dr. C.S. Bhogal (PIO, BJRMH), Dr. V.K. Jha, CCMO, Sh. Saket, DA (RTI) and Sh. Mohd. Azim Khan (appellant) were present in the hearing on 26.10.2023 at 12.00 Noon.
All the relevant records were examined. The matter was discussed with P.I.O. BJRM Hospital & Appellant. The PIO informed that the department has already submitted an appropriate reply in this matter. At the time of the hearing, the applicant raised some queries which were cleared.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A letter dated 23.02.2025 filed by the appellant is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for reference:
“…I am the appellant in the matter related to RTI application dated 12-09- 2023 concerning Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital (File No. CIC/BJRMIH/A/2023/650817). However, due to unavoidable circumstances, I will not be in Delhi on the hearing date and therefore request permission to attend the hearing via video conferencing.
Kindly provide the necessary VC link or instructions for joining the hearing online. I have attached a copy of the hearing notice for your reference.”
A written submission dated 27.02.2025 filed by the respondent is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for reference:
“…It is submitted that online RTI was received from Sh. Mohd. Azim Khan vide no BJRMH/R/2023/60026 Dated 12/09/2023. In response to this, the reply to all the points (1 to 6) as received from CCMO, BJRMH was forwarded to the applicant on 13/10/2023 though speed post.
The reply was received back in the hospital on 18/10/2023 with the remarks "address given is incomplete". The reply to the said RTI was again sent by email to applicant vide email dated 21/10/2023 at 12:41 P.M. The applicant then applied for first appeal online on 14.10.2023.
The first appeal was held on 26/10/2023 at 12.00 Noon in this hospital and the appeal was disposed off. The FAA held that the information supplied was appropriate and the queries raised by him were cleared. The copy of the said o
