In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000389
Date of Hearing : May 4, 2011
Date of Decision : May 4, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri C.P. Rai
H.No. F188/4, Laxmi Nagar,
New Delhi 110 092
The Appellant was heard on phone.
Respondents
Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS)
Office of the Addl. Director
CGHS East Zone, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi 110 092
Represented by: Dr. Veena Dhawan, CMO (NFSG) and Dr. S. Roy, AD(EZ)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000389
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 13.08.2010, filed with the PIO, CGHS, Laxmi Nagar,
New Delhi, sought various information related to posting of doctors/pharmacists/clerks, their job
profile, attendance, medical claims received, action taken on certain letters, guidelines, medicines
being issued etc. The PIO, on 15.09.2010, provided to the Applicant information in respect of point
nos. 3,6,7,8,9,10 and 13. As for the remaining ones, he informed the Applicant that his request is
being transferred to the concerned officers who are known to be the holders of the said information.
Thereafter, on 27.09.2010, Dr T Gupta, CMO I/C supplied the remaining information to the Applicant.
The Applicant, thereafter, filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority on 28.09.2010. He however,
did not receive any reply from the AA and thus filed the present appeal which was received in the
Commission on 09.12.2010. In this appeal, he requested that the PIO be asked to provide to him the
action taken on his letters written to the Director (CGHS). He also stated that since his letter were not
acted upon by the public authority, he had to spend Rs. 1964/ on the procurement of medicines.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents stated that they had forwarded the Appellant’s letters to the
concerned Chief Medical Officers who, in response, had sent their comments to them, which were,
thereafter, transmitted to the Appellant. Besides, they had requested the Appellant thrice to come to
their office to discuss his grievances. However, the Appellant never turned up for the same. The
Appellant, who was heard on phone, while reiterating his grievance mentioned in his 2ndappeal,
stated that he did not receive any comments from the Respondents.
3. Since the information (i.e. copy of comments) has not been reportedly received by the Appellant, it is
directed that the Respondents supply the same once again to the him. So far as the Appellant’s
grievance (refund of money he spent on purchase of medicine) is concerned, it is advised that the
Appellant avail of other existing channels available for redressal of such grievances such as the
present one as the same cannot be resolved through RTIAct.
4. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of and matter is closed.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri C.P. Rai
H.No. F188/4, Laxmi Nagar,
New Delhi 110 092
2. The Appellate Authority
Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS)
Office of the Addl. Director
CGHS East Zone, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi 110 092
3. The Public Information Officer
Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS)
Office of the Addl. Director
CGHS East Zone, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi 110 092
4. Officer Incharge, NIC