CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001554/4379
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001554
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Dipchand Chavanriya,
Chamber 401, Civil Court Compound,
District Court, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent : Mr. D.K.Chakravorty
Public Information Officer,
Institute of Human Behavior And Allied
Science,
O/o The Chief Health Officer/Director,
Dilshad Garden, Shahdara,
Delhi – 110095.
RTI application filed on : 07/01/2009 PIO replied : 19/03/2009 First appeal filed on : 05/03/2009 First Appellate Authority order : not replied Second Appeal received on : 28/05/2009 Information sought:
A patient, named Jyoti, her registration no. 2007/25428 dated 05/10/2007 D/o Mr.
Jagdish R/o Madar Gate, City-Anupseher, Distt.-Bulandshehar, U.P. had came to your
Hospital for her treatment. The appellant want to know some information related to her as
follows, please:-
(1) What kind of treatment Jyoti had came to your Hospital?
(2) What kind of physically problem had found in Jyoti after your treatment?
(3) How many serious problems had made to Jyoti?
(4) How long time had spent for making of Jyoti treatment?
(5) How long time Jyoti had given treatment?
(6) How was Jyoti’s position during the last treatment in your Hospital?
The PIO replied.
Information had not been supplied to the third party as per rules and exemption has been
sought under Section 8(1)(e).
Grounds for first appeal:
Desired information had not been received by the Appellant.
Order of First Appellate Authority:
Not replied.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant said in the grounds of Second Appeal to the CIC that he is not satisfied
with the PIO’s and First Appellate Authority had not issued order to concern PIO/authority
for supplying the information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Dipchand Chavanriya
Respondent: Mr. D.K.Chakravorty, PIO; Dr. Desai, Head, Department of Psychiatry;
Dr.Vijendra Singh, Assistant Prof. Psychiarty.
The Appellant has sought information about a medical record of Ms. Jyoti who was a patient
of Institute of Human Behavior And Allied Science. The PIO has claimed exemption udder
Section 8(1)(e) since he has claimed that there is a fiduciary relationship between the Doctor
and the Patient. The Appellant claims that the information is important since it affects his
personal life. The Appellant does not dispute the claim of fiduciary relationship but feels that
since it is important for him personally the information should be provided.
It is undeniable that the relationship between a patient and a doctor is a fiduciary relationship
hence the exemption appears to have been applied correctly. The RTI Act does not look at the
purpose of the information seeker and conversely the purpose of the applicant cannot justify
the release of the information which is exempt. The Appellant has not claimed any larger
public interest in this matter.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
The denial of information under Section 8(1)(e) is upheld.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per section
7(6) of RTI, Act, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
6 August 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(BK)