Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/X/09/00005/AD
Dated January 23, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Mr.P.Ganesh
Name of the Public Authority : M/o Health & Family Welfare
Background
1. The Appellant filed his RTI application dt.3.6.08 with the CPIO, Ministry
of Health & Family Welfare enclosing various correspondence between
himself, one Dr. N. Kalyanasuderam and his advocate . The gist of the
communication is whether one Dr. T.K. Narayanan has the
qualifications/standards to practice acupuncture or not. The CPIO
replied on 9.7.08 stating that in so far as the Central Govt. is
concerned, the status of practice in Acupuncture Therapy has already
been indicated in the M/o Health & Family Welfare letter
No.R.14015/25/96-U&H(R) (PT.) dt.25.11.03 and there is no change in
the status as on date. He also added that it is observed from the
copies of correspondence exchanged with Govt. of Tamil Nadu that the
Director of Medical & Rural Health Services, Chennai has already
replied on various points. He also requested the Appellant to raise
specific queries, if any, in view of above referred position. The
Appellant filed an appeal dt.13.8.08 with the Appellate Authority
stating that letters 9.1.04 and 25.3.04 given by the Deputy High
Commissioner, Sri Lanka about the qualifications acquired by Dr. T.K.
Narayanan, which says that Open University of Sri Lanka does not
award this Degree . The Appellate Authority replied on 12.9.08
providing information against the gist of all the documents (as given
below) enclosed by the Appellant:
i. What is the minimum qualification/standard for practicing
acupuncture?
ii. Whether Dr. T.K. Narayanan can practice acupuncture
iii. Whether practice of acupuncture is forbidden by law in Tamil
Nadu
iv. Whether it is regulated by any statutory body or any other law
in Tamil Nadu
v. Is there a need for an acupuncturist to get himself registered
under IMC or TNMC to practice acupuncture in Tamil Nadu
vi. That the police had formed a team to nab a quack who has
rendered bad treatment , but the quack has absconded
vii. That a case was filed in the High Court at Madras by T.K.
Narayanan seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the police
from interfering in his peaceful practice of alternate system of
medicine
viii. That the Open university of Sri Lanka does not award the
degree named in letter of E R Narayanan, Advocate
ix. That the Open International University, Colombo, is not an
accredited Institution by the University Grants Commission
x. Letter from Advocate of the Appellant saying that he has never
claimed that he is an MBBS Doctor or has practiced allopathic
medicine or had given injections. He is a bonafide acupuncturist.
The Appellant then preferred a second appeal before the CIC filed a
second appeal dt.7.10.08 before the CIC wanting to know whether
Dr.T.K. Narayanan is a boafide acupuncturist or not . He quoted from
the Appellate Authority’s letter dated 12.9.08 ” The Minsitry does
look at degrees conferred by other countries in acupuncture
and does not check its veracity” stating that this exactly is the
bone of contention. His contention is that in the light of the letters sent
by the Deputy High Commissioner, Sri Lanka about the qualifications
acquired by Dr. T.K. Narayanan, which says that the Open University,
Sri Lanka does not award this degree, the Certificate issued by the
Open International University, Sri Lanka , Colombo are bogus. He also
pointed out an error made in point no x and clarified that it is not his
Advocate but it is Dr.T.K. Narayanan’s Advocate who had addressed
him in the letter.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner,
scheduled the hearing for January 23, 2009.
3. Mr. M.M. Lal, CPIO And Dy. Secy and Ms. Shalini Prasad, Joint
Secretary represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondents submitted that they had provided all the information
available with them on the subject. The Appellate Authority referred
to the Appellant’s quote in the second appeal, from her letter dated
12 9.08, and pointed out that a typographical error had been made
and that the statement in her letter should be read as follows: “The
Ministry does not look at degrees conferred by other countries
in acupuncture and does not check its veracity” and that the
word ‘not’ was missing . She said that she would convey information
about this error to the Appellant at the earliest.
6. The Commission holds that all available information has been provided
by the Public Authority and suggests that the Appellant approach an
appropriate grievance redressal form with regard to his contention that
the degree of Dr. Narayanan is bogus.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Mr.P.Ganesh
23/108, Sri Ayyappa Nagar
First main Road
Chennai 600 092
2. The CPIO
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Nirman Bhavan
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Nirman Bhavan
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC