Complaint alleging use of a false medical certificate by a third party to obtain certain pensionary benefits; information regarding the expenses claimed by the third party for his high BP treatment sought - CIC: expenses incurred on treatment denied
25 Mar, 2014
Complaint alleging production of a false medical certificate by a third party to obtain certain pensionary benefits; information regarding the expenses claimed by the third party for his high BP treatment sought - CIC: expenses incurred on treatment of a third party cannot be provided; PIO to convey the final finding of the Respondents on the said complaint
Facts
This case pertains to an RTI application filed by the Appellant on 19.12.2011 seeking information regarding action taken by the Respondents on a complaint filed earlier by him, alleging production of a false medical certificate by a third party to the bank to obtain certain pensionary benefits. In the second point of his RTI application, he also sought information regarding the expenses claimed by the third party for his high BP treatment. The CPIO responded on 28.12.2011 and denied the information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and the order dated 23.1.2012 of the FAA, in which he endorsed the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 22.2.2012.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information under Section 8(1)(j). We are in agreement with them that information concerning expenses incurred, if any, on the high BP treatment of a third party, cannot be provided to the Appellant. However, in so far as the information concerning action taken by the Respondents on the complaint filed by the Appellant is concerned, the CPIO is directed to convey to him the final finding of the Respondents on the said complaint, within fifteen days from the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The Appellant also stated that in view of his complaint, the Respondents should have obtained the opinion of a medical board regarding the third party. He was informed that the Commission was not competent to go into this issue.
3. With the above direction and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
4. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner