Applicant alleged negligence in his wife’s treatment and that she was not referred to TATA Memorial Cancer Hospital for her cancer treatment - CIC directed the PIO to conduct an enquiry into the allegation & furnish appropriate explanation within two week
Date of Decision : 21.04.2016
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about the number of persons affected by cancer before 1993, after 1993 male /female, adult /children in the area around the plant site etc.
Background of the case:
The appellant through his RTI application dated 28.11.2013 sought certain information as mentioned above which was incomplete in as much as it was unsigned and the fees was paid by way of Court fee stamp and not as prescribed in the RTI Act. Accordingly, the CPIO vide letter dated 13/16.12.2013 informed the Applicant to resubmit the fees in the form of cash/DD/IPO drawn in favour of Accounts Officer, GSO while also indicating the exact information sought by him. The applicant felt aggrieved and filed a First Appeal dated 17.01.2014 reiterating his contentions. The FAA vide response dated 21.02.2014 disposed of the First Appeal.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing both the parties attended through video conferencing. The detailed narration by the Appellant was heard by the Commission, the sum and substance whereof revolved around the core issue that the applicant believed the negligence on the part of the Respondent hospital authorities despite knowledge of the health of the patient and failure to refer his ailing wife for cancer treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital led to her death in 1994. The Respondent on their side explained that upon receipt of the modified and corrected, signed RTI application with appropriate fees, they had reverted with response dated 22.01.2014 providing information as could be provided by them. The PIO, BARC was not present during the hearing but the FAA submitted that the specific query as to why the applicant’s wife was not referred to TATA Memorial hospital was not raised earlier by the Applicant and hence the answer could not be provided. But in most probability, the applicant had not sought the specific reference and hence his wife’s case was not referred to the Tata Memorial hospital and instead as a practice she was provided treatment from the empanelled hospitals from nearby locations, in order that further harassment of long distance travel and accompanying logistical problems may be avoided by the applicant and his family. Since the facts of the case demand that the Appellant be provided an explanation as to why his specific query about his wife not being referred to a particular hospital, this Complaint case is being converted into a Second Appeal.
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that it is expedient in this case that the queries be refocused in order that the information against the same can be provided by the Respondent. The core query of the Applicant is based on the alleged negligence on the part of the Respondent in his wife’s treatment and that she was not referred to the appropriate hospital for her cancer treatment. The Commission directs the PIO to conduct an enquiry into the allegation of the Appellant and furnish appropriate explanation to the Commission within two weeks as to why she was not referred to the TATA Memorial Cancer Hospital for her treatment. Copy of the same explanation to be sent to the Complainant as well. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Shri T.G.Rammohan v. Deptt. of Atomic Energy Kancheepuram in F. No.CIC/CC/C/2014/000338