Information concerning details of patients and nature of illness was denied u/s 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(e) - Appellant: his own medical claim had been rejected while those of others had been accepted - CIC: the Commission is not competent to go into this issue
8 Feb, 2014Inspection was offered to applicant claiming that information pertaining to emergency medical claims was voluminous - information concerning details of the patients and the nature of illness etc. was 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. & 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; - appellant said that his own medical claim had been rejected and he had sought the above information to establish as to why his claim was rejected, while those of others had been accepted - CIC: the Commission is not competent to go into this issue
Background
According to the appeal, the Appellant filed an RTI application on 19th March, 2013 seeking information on three points pertaining to emergency medical claims at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvanathapuram. The CPIO informed the Appellant on 19.4.2013 that since the record was voluminous, he could inspect the relevant record on a mutually convenient date and time. Not satisfied with the inspection of records allowed to him and the information made available, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 21.7.2013. In his order dated 4.9.2013, the FAA informed him that “CPIO vide letter No. CPIO/DOS/RTI/2013/2969 dated 23.7.2013 has directed the custodian of records to furnish the certified copies of documents sought by the applicant, after application of ‘severability’ clause u/s 10 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. A copy of the same has also been endorsed to the applicant.” Aggrieved with the order of the FAA, the Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal in October, 2013.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Respondents submitted that they had provided information regarding details of beneficiaries of emergency medical claims, the amount claimed and the recommendations of the Medical Emergency Claims Committee. In response to our query, the Appellant confirmed that he had received this information. He, however, submitted that he had also sought information concerning details of the patients and the nature of illness etc. and this had not been given to him. The Respondents submitted that this information being personal information, they had denied it in terms 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. & section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act, 2005. We note that this information is indeed personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the concerned individuals. The Appellant did not advance any argument to establish that any larger public interest would justify the disclosure of this information. Instead, he said that his own medical claim had been rejected and he had sought the above information to establish as to why his claim was rejected, while those of others had been accepted. However, we note that this issue does not figure in the RTI application, which is the subject matter of the second appeal before us. Moreover, the Commission is not competent to go into this issue. Having carefully considered the submissions made by both sides, we uphold the decision of the public authority to provide information after application of the ‘severability’ clause u/s 10(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information. of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
4. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri T K G Nambiar v. Department of Space in File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/002519/SH