CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000809/7780
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000809
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Kapil Thakur
S/o SH. D.K. Thakur
R/o 51, Vikasheel Apartment,
Sector - 13, Rohini,
Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. D. K. Chakraborty
Public Information Officer &
Joint Director (Administration)
Institute of Human Behaviour Allied Science
Dilshad Garden, Shahdara,
Delhi – 110095
RTI application filed on : 22/09/2009
PIO replied : 21/10/2009
First appeal filed on : Not Mentioned
First Appellate Authority order : 25/01/2010
Second Appeal received on : 30/03/2010
S. No Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. To provide the copies of entire The information is related to the personal medical
proceedings held at the institute of information of the patient and is exempted under
medical opinion and counseling and section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. It can be shared
to provide the opinion of the medical only if the court asks for such information or if it
persons based on their reasoning and is related to the larger public interest of the
observation along with the relevant society.
records.
2. To provide the names and address of Dr. R. K. Grover,
the appellate authority who should Director/ First Appellate Authority,
be approached if not satisfied with IHBAS, Dilshad Garden,
the information. Shahdara, Delhi - 110095
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The First Appellant Authority has stated that the matrimonial disputes between the parties are
beyond the purview of the RTI Act and the non – disclosure of medical information under
section 8(1)(c) is just and correct.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply of the PIO and unfair disposal of the appeal by the First Appellant
Authority.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. D. K. Chakraborty, PIO & Joint Director (Administration); Dr. Rajesh Kumar
Associate Prof;
The Appellant has sought medical records relating to himself and his wife Mrs. Babita.
The PIO has refused to give this information on the grounds that this exempt under Section 8(1)
(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission agrees with the PIO that the information relating to
Mrs. Babita would be exempt under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) since a doctor holds the information in
fiduciary capacity and disclosure of medical records can certainly be considered an invasion on
the privacy of an individual. However, the Commission is not able to understand the refusal to
give the appellant information of his own medical records. The PIO has stated that the records
relate to psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Kapil Thakur. The PIO states that in psychiatric evaluation
there are instances where disclosing the information to a patient may be damaging to the patient
if he is not in the mental state of mind to take the information in a proper manner. The
Commission directs the PIO that if it is felt based on the available records that Mr. Kapil Thakur
cannot handle the information in a mature manner based on the doctors evaluation this should be
stated. Alternately if there is no such evidence with the doctors the information of the medical
records of a person must be given to him since no exemption under the RTI Act would apply.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to either send a certificate from the doctor concerned
that based on the evidence the appellant should not be given the information in his
own interest. If such certificate cannot be issued then the PIO will give the records
relating to Mr. Kapil Thakur to him before 05 June 2010.
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
19 May 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(MS)