Appellant: The order of suspension of doctors issued by MCI in the case of negligence leading to death of his daughter was changed by DMC & the doctors were only cautioned - CIC: inspection of relevant files numbering approximately 600 permitted

Information sought:

The appellant sought information regarding details of order/ recommendation of disciplinary committee of DMC has been changed/ modified in the final order of DMC along with whether the said change/modification was informed to the concerned parties. The information has been sought from the year 2008 to 2012.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

Both the parties are present. The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 06.05.2013 seeking the above information. Registrar/PIO, DMC in his reply stated that no record is maintained in the Council; however, the orders passed by the Council are available on the website. The President/FAA in his order stated that the information provided by the PIO is as per record and in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The appellant stated that his 3-year old daughter expired due to doctors’ negligence in Holy Family Hospital. He stated that he had filed a complaint against the negligent doctors, a Medical Board was constituted and the matter was referred to the Medical Council of India (MCI). At the time of the hearing, it was found that the doctors were indeed negligent and that orders for three months suspension were given. However, the DMC in its administrative capacity changed the same and the doctors were only cautioned for their negligence. He alleged that the said order while upholding the culpability of the doctors, had reduced it to a mere caution. The appellant stated that he has perused the said case file under another RTI application and that there are indeed two different orders on the said file. He stated that a case is pending in the High Court in the same regard. On query by the Commission whether DMC can change the order passed by the B\Medical Board of MCI, the respondent stated that in cases of negligence of doctors, a Board of 6 members is constituted and a decision is passed; then a 20-member Bench of the Council hears it and then a final order is passed. The appellant stated that the doctors, in the case pending before the High Court, are contending the same fact, i.e., MCI has ordered for their suspension, but not DMC. The respondent stated that they have no separate information on record as to changes/modifications in the orders of the Disciplinary Committee. On query by the Commission has to how many cases would there be against negligence of doctors during 2008-13, the respondent stated that it will approximately be 600 cases. He stated that if the appellant is willing, he can inspect those case files but there is no separate list, available on record, to that effect. He further stated that there is no intention of denying information, the appellant can visit their office and inspect the relevant files.

Decision:

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of documents, the Commission directs the respondent to fix a mutually convenient date and time for inspection of relevant files (600 approx.) with the appellant. The said files shall be inspected within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Yashovardhan Azad)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri M.K. Gupta v. Maulana Azad Medical College in F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001523-YA