Entitlement of patients to medical facilities available in G.B. Pant hospital

Background        

A physically challenged person was running a PCO in the premises of G.B. Pant hospital. He claimed that a land/space was recommended to be allotted to him verbally for installing a tea stall in the premises of the hospital which the hospital HOD had later verbally denied him on the ground that they don’t need it at present. He filed a RTI application complaining that patients were being forced to get their medical test done from private clinics by the hospital despite the availability of required medical equipment with them for conducting said medical tests. The appellant asked the Vigilance Department, Delhi Secretariat, about the entitlement of patients to medical facilities (like M.R.I., C.T. scan, x-ray etc.) available in G.B. Pant hospital. He also sought the service record of the Director and the HOD of X-ray Department of G.B. Pant hospital. His application was transferred to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of G.B. Pant hospital. The GB Pant Hospital informed that they do not presently require any tea stall in their premises; there was no rule prescribing that the patients should not be advised to get their medical test done from private clinics and as far as possible patients are provided with the facilities of medical test in the hospital itself. The respondent denied the records of the Director and HOD stating that there was no public interest in providing this information. Dissatisfied with the reply given by the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Vigilance Department, Delhi Secretariat. The FAA advised the appellant to file his appeal with the FAA of the G.B. Pant Hospital. The appellant thereafter, filed the second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC). The appellant submitted that he was seeking the service records of the HOD since was aggrieved with the decision of the HOD regarding allotment of space for his tea stall.

View of CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to formally communicate to the appellant that there was no Rule which stops them to advise the patients to get their medical tests done from private clinics. The Commission observed that the service records of Director and HOD were third party records and should not be disclosed without any larger public interest, and especially when the appellant was seeking those records in the light of the flimsy reason. The Commission rejected the appeal observing that there shall be no further disclosure obligation on the respondents in respect of service records of the two Doctors to the appellant.

Citation: Mohd. Sagir v. G.B. Pant Hospital in File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/000473