CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2010/01366/SG/14495
Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2010/01366/SG
Appellant : Mr. Basant Dev Arya,
New Chamber No 38,
I Floor, Court Compound
Dehradun-248001
Respondent : Prof. P. K. Julka
PIO & Prof Radiotherapy
AIIMS, Ansari Nagar
New Delhi-110029
RTI application filed on : 17/05/2010
PIO replied : 24/05/2010
First Appeal filed on : 18/06/2010
First Appellate Authority Reply on appeal: 23/12/2010
Appeal filed before Competent FAA on : 18/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 26/05/2011
Second Appeal filed on : 30/05/2011
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information in respect of treatment of Shri Parmanand (IRCH No
64578/OL) as available on the bed head ticket containing name, age, weight, Blood Groups,
diagnosis, treatment, summary at the time of discharge etc.
Reply of PIO:
The information sought by the Appellant comes under Section 8(1)(e) and exempted in The Act
hence comes under fiduciary relationship between Doctor and Patient.
Grounds for First Appeal:
1. The sought information was denied as claimed exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of The Act.
2. The information sought most essential by the Appellant in larger Public Interest applying the
principle of severability was sought as-"Blood Group, Weight, Thumb Impression or mark of
Identification if any etc" and a request to have an explanation as to what is meant by "Larger
Public Interest".
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Note: The Appellant initially sent a letter to Ex Appellate Authority as provided in the PIO Reply to
Appellant's RTI later Appeal was filed by the Appellant before Appellate Authority (Prof & Head of
Radiotherapy)
The FAA concurred with the findings of the CPIO that the Information sought was under exemption in the
light of provisions of Section 8(1)(e)&(j).
Grounds for Second Appeal:
1. The Appellant alleges that FAA disposed the appeal without application of mind.
2. The Appellant claims larger public interest is involved in the information sought by Appellant.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Prof. P. K. Julka, PIO & Prof. Radiotherapy;
The Appellant has sought the information about the medical records of a patient Mr. Parmanand.
Information about the medical details of a patient is held by a doctor in a fiduciary relationship. In view of
this the PIO has claimed exemption from disclosure of information. The Appellant has now shown any
large public interest to justify the disclosure of information despite the exemption.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information sought by the Appellant is exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI
Act.
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.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
08 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (AM)
