Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.3341/IC(A)/2008
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2008/00994
Dated, the 26th September, 2008
Name of the Appellant: Dr. Neeraj Nagpal
Name of the Public Authority: E.S.I.C. Hospital, Chandigarh
i
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard on 24/9/2008.
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated July 17, 2007, asked for
specific test reports conducted on a patient, who is identified in his application.
3. The CPIO has replied and furnished the documents on the basis of
available records. On examination of the pathological test reports, the appellant
has alleged that a part of information furnished to him has been fabricated to suit
the requirements of a third party, who have filed a suit for damages.
4. During the hearing, the information asked for and the documents supplied
to the appellant were discussed and examined. The appellant stated that the
information furnished to him is false and misleading. He also stated that as per
the practice of the respondent, a part of information supplied to him was not
signed by the In-charge Pathologist. It was also pointed out that the signature on
the document, in question, does not match with the signature of the Laboratory
Technician. The appellant also alleged that in respect of the patient identified in
his application, certain Pathological test could not be conducted for want of
necessary Kits in the hospital. Yet, in another report it was mentioned that the
tests were conducted by using Kits provided by a Doctor, who was not authorized
to ask for conduct of the relevant tests by the Laboratory Technician, Mr. Vijay
James.
5. The Laboratory Technician, Mr. Vijay James was questioned during the
hearing and asked to explain on whose instruction he had conducted the tests
and as to why did he not sign the test reports. To this, he said that there was no
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
In-charge Pathologist and at the behest of a Doctor, who was not his Supervisor,
he conducted the test. He was, however, unable to explain as to why he did not
put his signature on the report nor he could get it verified by his Superior Officer.
6. The CPIO and the Appellate Authority, who were present during the
hearing, could not explain the source of discrepancy in the test reports generated
in the hospital. The respondents said that they have not examined the
genuineness of the information. The documents asked for by the appellant were
furnished on the basis of available records. The respondents, therefore, pleaded
that the case should be remitted back to them for further investigation in the
matter so that proper and authentic information would be given to the appellant.
Decision:
7. As agreed between the parties, the case is remitted back to the Appellate
Authority of the respondent. He is directed to enquire into the matter and
examine the authenticity of the test reports in question. If necessary, he should
institute a high powered Enquiry Committee to unearth the truth in the matter of
creation of the pathological reports. The matter should be examined and
reviewed within 2 months from the date of issue of this decision. And,
accordingly, a suitable reply should be given to the appellant.
8. If the appellant is not satisfied with the response given by the Appellate
Authority, he would be free to seek legal remedy in the matter.
9. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
2
Name & address of Parties:
1. Dr. Neeraj Nagpal, House No.1184, Sector-21B, Chandigarh.
2. Sh. Prakash Chand, Jt. Director (Admn.) & CPIO, E.S.I.C. Hospital,
Industrial Area-II, Ram Darba, Chandigarh – 160 002.
3. Dr. Ramesh Chand, Medical Superintendent & Appellate Authority,
E.S.I.C. Hospital, Industrial Area-II, Ram Darba, Chandigarh – 160 002.
3