Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 7517
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Sanjeev Kumar – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Directorate General of Health Services, GNCTD – Respondent
CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/108412
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Subhash Chandra Agrawal
PIO must provide complete, scrutinized info under RTI including numeric/public data from private bodies via regulator, not mere forwarding; contradictory replies on license validity warrant show-cause for penalty and compensation process.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 5(4), 7(6), 10, 19(8)(b), 20(1) - Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1953 - Second appeal under RTI Act - Information sought regarding regulatory authority, validity of hospital registration on specific hospitalization dates, action on complaints, relationship with claim therapist, case settlements, doctor fee details, preventive measures - PIO's initial and revised replies held contradictory and incomplete, especially on registration validity during pending renewal (deemed valid per norms despite post-facto issuance), numeric case data, severed correspondence, doctor names from records, and public-domain preventive steps - PIO directed to provide revised point-wise reply free of cost, accessing info under Section 5(4) if needed - PIOs show-caused for penalty due to casual conduct obstructing right to information - Appellant to file detailed compensation claim with documents; respondent to counter - Matter adjourned for further hearing with updated submissions. (Interim Decision dated 07.10.2024)
(B) RTI Act - Obligations of PIO - Public authority as regulator must apply mind, invoke Section 10 for partial disclosure, not merely forward private body replies without scrutiny; non-disclosure of generic numeric or public-domain info unacceptable - Compensation claim under Section 19(8)(b) for financial loss and mental agony directed to be quantified with evidence.
Facts of the case:
Appellant filed RTI seeking details on hospital's licensing status during wife's hospitalization, actions on complaints, claim therapist ties, fee breakdowns, and preventive steps against malpractices. PIO replied affirmatively on license validity enclosing post-dated certificate; FAA partially allowed first appeal. In second appeal, Commission noted flawed replies, issued show-cause, ordered revised info and compensation claim process; revised reply still deficient on key points like interim registration validity, numeric data, etc.
Findings of Court:
Revised reply legally flawed on points 2-4 (unaddressed interim validity without cited provisions), 7 (numeric data non-confidential), 8 (incomplete, Section 10 applicable), 9 (doctor names available), 10 (preventive steps public-domain); PIO's casual handling unappreciated.
Issues: Whether hospital held valid registration during hospitalization under deemed renewal norms; PIO's duty to provide complete info including from private bodies under Section 2(f), numeric/public data, partial disclosure; liability for contradictory replies warranting penalty/compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: PIO must furnish accurate, point-wise info applying mind, not act as post office; registration pending renewal deemed valid per norms but requires specific provision citation; non-provision of non-confidential numeric/public info violates RTI; show-cause and compensation process for obstructions upheld, matter reserved post-submissions.
Result: PIO directed for detailed submissions on registration rules, revised complete info free; appellant for compensation documents; respondent to counter and facilitate private body input; hearing adjourned, appeal reserved.
Information sought:
-
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.10.2023 seeking the following information:
1. Regulatory public-authority for Artemis Hospital (A-1, New Friends Colony, New Delhi- 110025) mentioning date of first issue of license to the said Artemis Hospital by the said regulatory authority
2. Had the said Artemis Hospital valid license issued by DGHS and/or any regulatory public- authority on the dates of hospitalization (07.04.2023 and 08.04.2023) of my wife Smt Shikha Aggarwal
3. If yes to (2), provide a copy of the license with validity of 07.04.2023 to 08.04.2023 from the concerned regulatory authority to the said Artemis Hospital.
4. If no to (2), complete and detailed information together with all related documents/correspondence/file-notings etc. on action taken against the said Artemis Hospital for continuing hospital and medical treatments on 07.04.2023 and 08.04.2023 without having a valid license.
5. Please provide me complete and detailed information together with all related documents/correspondence/file-notings etc. on action taken on my complaint dated 06.06.2023 lodged at CPGRAMS portal (copy enclosed) either by DGHS and/or by any authority where the said complaint might have been forwarded.
6. Relationship of Claim Therapist with the said Artemis Hospital for cashless hospital- treatment
7. Year-wise number of cases settled by Claim Therapist in respect of the said Artemis Hospital ever since the said Artemis Hospital started its hospital- activities
8. Copies of complete correspondence by the regulatory authority with the said Artemis Hospital in respect of my enclosed complaint
9. Names of doctors for which hospital-authorities charged fees in respect of treatment of my wife Smt. Shikha Aggarwal clearly mentioning part of charged fees (a) paid to concerned doctors (b) retained by hospital- authorities
10. Complete information on preventive steps taken by the concerned regulatory authority to ensure that the said Artemis Hospital may not cheat patients/attendants in the manner I was cheated in respect of treatment of my wife Smt. Shikha Aggarwal
11. Any other related information
12. File-notings on movement of this RTI application
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.11.2023 stating as under:
-
1. The regulating authority of Artemis Hospital (A-1, New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110025) is Director General Health Services as per Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1953.
2. Yes.
3. Copy of registration certificate is enclosed.
4. Not applicable in view of reply given at point No. 2 above.
5. No such complaint is found in CPGRAMS Portal of Nursing Home Cell. The RTI representation is taken as grievance and letter dated 15.11.2023 is issued by this Directorate. Copy of the same is enclosed.
6 Information does not pertain to this branch.
7. Information does not pertain to this branch.
8. Copy of letter issued on 15.11.2023 is enclosed.
9. Information does not pertain to this branch.
10. Information does not pertain to this branch.
11. Information does not pertain to this branch
12. Information does not pertain to this branch.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 20.12.2023, held as under.
The appeal was conducted on 20.12.2023.ASO (NH Cell) and APIO(RTI) were present in the appeal. And as requested by the appellant to authorize RTI consultant Sh. Subhash Chander sharma to attend the appeal was allowed to attend hearing. During the appeal the copy of the letter was provided by the Sh. Subhash Chander sharma vide dated 29.11.2023 (copy enclosed) and the same has been provided to the ASO (NH Cell) and I/C (NH Cell) directed to provide the reply of question no 6,7 and 9 within 15days.
Order passed and appeal disposed of accordingly.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds –
“Learned MS & PIO Nursing Homes vide an eye-wash response dated 21.11.2023 in response to q
