Contradictory response to claim for medical reimbursement
The applicant sought information about reimbursement that can be claimed by his father, Sh. M A Khan, on account of being a Retd. Railway employee, documents required to be submitted in order to claim such reimbursement and their format. The PIO stated that if he possessed the employee health scheme card then, the applicant’s father was eligible to claim reimbursement and the list of required documents and format are available on the internet and in the office where RELHS Card is registered for treatment. Subsequently, the applicant’s father submitted his documents for reimbursement of his medical bill along with relied upon doucments before the Chief Medical Superintendent for the purpose of processing of his claim. Upon non receipt of any response, the applicant’s father filed a fresh RTI application to which the Chief Medical Superintendent, Mughalsarai responded that there is no PIO or any such post existent in the office.
View of the CIC
The Commission noted that the same Chief Medical Superintendent has responded differently to both the RTI applications of the applicant and his father. While the queries raised by the son were addressed, in case of responding to the father’s application, the same person (the identity being affirmed from the similar signatures) denied that any post of PIO exists in the Mughalsarai office. The Commission sought explanation from the Chief Medical Superintendent, Railway Hospital, Mughalsarai about such contradictory replies. The Commission further directed the Chief Medical Superintendent to ensure that the information as sought by the father of the applicant is furnished and his claim for medical reimbursement expeditiously processed.
Citation: Mr. S A Khan & Mr. M A v. Railway Hospital in CIC/AD/C/2011/001080