Information regarding disease and treatment of a person denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Appellant: HOCL suffered a loss of over Rs. 1.5 Crore due to failure of the said person to expedite a matter in Court on the pretext of illness - CIC: no larger public interest
25 Oct, 2013Information regarding disease and treatment of a person denied u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. - Appellant: Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited (HOCL) suffered a loss of over Rs. 1.5 Crore due to failure of the said person to expedite a matter in the Court on the pretext of illness - CIC: the medical treatment details of third party is one’s personal information exempt from disclosure and appellant has failed to establish any larger public interest
ORDER
1. The appellant through his RTI application dated 24.9.2012 (in Marathi Language) sought to know from which exact disease Shri Sanjay Vasant Deshpandey suffering, in which hospital he took treatment, date on which he restored back to normalcy; investigation reports of Doctors with documentary proof all record of medical treatment, bills of medicines with documentary proof. The appellant has alleged that HOCL has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 2.71 crores in the case filed by M/s. Narendra Construction Company for recovery of their dues, as Shri S.V. Deshpande, who was entrusted and assigned the special work to assist the Advocate engaged by HOCL. The appellant alleged that the undue delay was caused by Shri Sanjay Vasantrao Deshpandey by joining hands with the Contractor. The CPIO vide letter No. HOC/RTI dated 18.10.2012 informed the appellant that providing the information regarding illness of Shri Sanjay Vasantrao Deshpande, is personal information and is exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act.
2. Aggrieved with reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 19.11.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide order No.CMD/HOCL/RTI/2012 dated 11.12.2012 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
3. The appellant filed written submissions during the hearing before the Commission in which he states that Shri Deshpande intentionally and deliberately caused delay in supplying required information and documents to the advocate under the pretext of illness though he was not ill or sick or bedridden. Under the pretext of illness he failed to expedite the matter in the Court due to which HOCL has to bear a loss of Rs. 1,56,66,369
4. The CPIO submits that M/s. Narendra Construction Co had filed two separate special Civil Suits in the Court of Civil Judge, Panvel against the HOCL for recovery of their withheld amount and interest. The said matters had come up for final hearing in December 2008 and both the matters were decided on 28.1.2009 and 29.1.2009 by passing the decree orders for an amount of Rs. 2.71 crores along with interest, as against the claim of Rs. 5.27 crores (excluding interest). The HOCL had challenged both the orders passed by the Civil Judge. The said appeals were admitted by the Hon’ble High Court on merits on 10.2.2010 by condoning the delay. Subsequently, the HOCL had filed Civil Application No. 2930 of 2010 before the High Court, Mumbai for staying the operation of the said orders passed by the Civil Judge. After hearing both the parties, Hon’ble High Court granted the conditional stay for implementation of impugned judgements and Decree passed by the lower Court. While granting stay to the operation of the orders passed by the lower Court, Hon’ble High Court observed that since, it is a money decree, the appellant (i.e. HOCL) are obliged to pay the decrial amount. Accordingly, in compliance with the said order passed by High Court, HOCL had deposited the decrial amount of Rs. 2, 71, 20, 309.92 on 27.8.2010 and 28.8.2010 in the High Court, Mumbai. Subsequently, the Civil Applications filed by M/s. Narendra Construction Co. for withdrawal of said amount had come up for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court on 12.7.2012, when the Division Bench of the High Court passed the following order:
“(i) Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with modification that investment of the amount deposited in this Court shall be made in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till the final disposal of the appeals; (ii) If the appeals are ready for final hearing, the same shall be added to the appropriate final hearing board.”.
Accordingly, High Court deposited the said amount in fixed deposit in the nationalized bank. In view of the above, the allegation made by the appellant that there is a loss to HOCL to the tune of Rs. 2.71 crores is totally false and baseless. Hence, the question of linking the case of illness of Shri S.V. Deshpande with the said case does not arise and therefore, the information/ documents sought by the appellant were denied u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act by the CPIO.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that the information as sought by the appellant about the medical treatment details of Shri Deshpande is third party information and is exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The appellant has failed to convincingly establish any larger public interest for disclosure of the information sought. The stand taken by the respondent in their reply is upheld. The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Deepak Narayan Joshi v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000412