Whether action has been taken for the complaint which has been lodged on Google Reviews by G.B. Pant Hospital? CIC: Appropriate reply has not been provided to the Appellant - CIC: Provide a revised reply to the Appellant, free of cost, within 15 days
28 Mar, 2021Whether action has been taken for the complaint which has been lodged on Google Reviews by G.B. Pant Hospital? CIC: Appropriate reply has not been provided to the Appellant - CIC: PIO to provide a revised reply to the Appellant, free of cost, within 15 days of receipt of this order and send a compliance report of the same to the Commission
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 10 points regarding following information:
1. Whether action has been taken for the complaint which has been lodged on Google Reviews by Mohit Sharma for G.B. Pant Hospital?
2. If no action taken the reason for the same.
3. Whether you will consider the complaint lodged on public platform on Google reviews of G.B. Pant Hospital?
4. Whether public review is considered as complaint and if not reason for the same?
5. Definition of the complaint for hospital doctors etc.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has provided misleading information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Dr. Girish, Professor & Rep. of PIO, G.B. Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research-(GIPMER) (Government of NCT of Delhi), D-Block, Room No.-115, First Floor, 1-Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi, Present in person.
Upon Commissions instance, Rep. of the PIO submitted that reply was provided to the Appellant on 18.07.2018. He further submitted that FAA vide its order dated 07.09.2018 has provided detailed order justifying the denial of information on the ground that no information has been sought under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
At the outset Commission observes that reply provided by Dr. H.S. Meena, then PIO on 18.07.2018 was vague and prepared without application of mind. Commission expresses displeasure on such a conduct of then PIO and warns him to remain extremely careful in future so that such lapses do not recur.
The present PIO is directed to serve a copy of this order on Dr. H.S. Meena, then PIO, at his present address for taking note of the adverse remarks of the Commission.
Now, Commission on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has not been provided to the Appellant and accordingly, directs the PIO to provide a revised reply to the Appellant, free of cost, within 15 days of receipt of this order and send a compliance report of the same to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mohit Sharma v. Office of the Medical Superintendent, G.B. Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research-(GIPMER) in Second Appeal No.: CIC/GBPIT/A/2018/162506, Date of Decision: 29-01-2021