The only issue in the present appeal is about non-supply of the report of
the Enquiry Committee submitted by Dr. Vinita Matta, who was appointed to
enquire into the treatment given to Smt. Parvati Mahadev Sutar in MbPT Hospital
from 13.11.2011 to 17.12.2011. A copy of the report has been denied by the
respondent on the grounds that enquiry into the matter, particularly how the
incident occurred, was still under enquiry by the Enquiry Committee. The
information to the appellant cannot be denied indefinitely on the ground that the
matter is still under enquiry even after so long. The Commission hereby directs
the CPIO to provide the findings of the report to the appellant free of cost within
two weeks of receipt of this order.
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/0002474
Dated: 19.06.2013
Name of Appellant : Shri Mahadev Tukaram Sutar
Name of Respondent : Mumbai Port Trust
Date of Hearing : 23.05.2013
Shri Mahadev Tukaram Sutar, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed
the present appeal dated 21.5.2012 before the Commission against the
respondent Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT), Mumbai for not providing complete and
satisfactory information in response to his RTI-application dated 19.1.2012. The
appellant was represented by Uday Choudhari whereas the respondent were
represented by Shri P. Mohana Chandran, Secretary/FAA and Dr. Vasumati
Upadhye, Sr. Dy. CMO/CPIO, Medical Department.
2. The appellant has through his RTI application dated 19.1.2012 sought
information on the following three queries “(a) Smt. Parvati Mahadev Sutar wife
of the appellant was admitted in the MbPT Hospital on 13.11.2011 and
underwent operation on right knee on 16.11.201 and shifted to Bombay Hospital
and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai on 17.12.2011; (b) The required
information is about the report of the enquiry committee submitted by Dr. Vinita
Matta, who was appointed to enquire into the treatment given to Smt. Parvati
Mahadev Sutar in MbPT Hospital from 13.11.2011 to 17.12.2011; and (c) The
information in the form of certified copies of the case papers/treatment sheetCase No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002474
relating to treatment given to Smt. Sutar during 13.11.11 to 17.12.2011 in MbPT
Hospital.”. The CPIO vide her letter No. H/E/39/9926 dated 18.2.2012 denied
information on Point (b) and (c) of the RTI application u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the
RTI Act and provided information on Point (c) i.e. summary of the case.
3. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal
on 12.3.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. AA/RTI/FAA Order
5/2590 dated 11/12.4.2012 held that the preliminary enquiry report has to be
considered as confidential and further actions in the matter were required to be
taken. However, as Smt. Sutar is still undergoing treatment for the skin infection,
it is appropriate that the husband of the patient is supplied with the copies of
case papers indicating the treatment given to Smt. Sutar between 13.11.2011
and 16.12.2011, which the CPIO may do within ten days. The CPIO, in
compliance with the directions of the FAA, vide her letter No. 624 dated
21.4.2012 provided photocopies of case papers consisting of 97 pages to the
appellant.
4. The only issue in the present appeal is about non-supply of the report of
the Enquiry Committee submitted by Dr. Vinita Matta, who was appointed to
enquire into the treatment given to Smt. Parvati Mahadev Sutar in MbPT Hospital
from 13.11.2011 to 17.12.2011. A copy of the report has been denied by the
respondent on the grounds that enquiry into the matter, particularly how the
incident occurred, was still under enquiry by the Enquiry Committee. The
information to the appellant cannot be denied indefinitely on the ground that the
matter is still under enquiry even after so long. The Commission hereby directs
the CPIO to provide the findings of the report to the appellant free of cost within
two weeks of receipt of this order.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission with the above
directions/observations.
2Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002474
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Print Page
the Enquiry Committee submitted by Dr. Vinita Matta, who was appointed to
enquire into the treatment given to Smt. Parvati Mahadev Sutar in MbPT Hospital
from 13.11.2011 to 17.12.2011. A copy of the report has been denied by the
respondent on the grounds that enquiry into the matter, particularly how the
incident occurred, was still under enquiry by the Enquiry Committee. The
information to the appellant cannot be denied indefinitely on the ground that the
matter is still under enquiry even after so long. The Commission hereby directs
the CPIO to provide the findings of the report to the appellant free of cost within
two weeks of receipt of this order.
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/0002474
Dated: 19.06.2013
Name of Appellant : Shri Mahadev Tukaram Sutar
Name of Respondent : Mumbai Port Trust
Date of Hearing : 23.05.2013
Shri Mahadev Tukaram Sutar, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed
the present appeal dated 21.5.2012 before the Commission against the
respondent Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT), Mumbai for not providing complete and
satisfactory information in response to his RTI-application dated 19.1.2012. The
appellant was represented by Uday Choudhari whereas the respondent were
represented by Shri P. Mohana Chandran, Secretary/FAA and Dr. Vasumati
Upadhye, Sr. Dy. CMO/CPIO, Medical Department.
2. The appellant has through his RTI application dated 19.1.2012 sought
information on the following three queries “(a) Smt. Parvati Mahadev Sutar wife
of the appellant was admitted in the MbPT Hospital on 13.11.2011 and
underwent operation on right knee on 16.11.201 and shifted to Bombay Hospital
and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai on 17.12.2011; (b) The required
information is about the report of the enquiry committee submitted by Dr. Vinita
Matta, who was appointed to enquire into the treatment given to Smt. Parvati
Mahadev Sutar in MbPT Hospital from 13.11.2011 to 17.12.2011; and (c) The
information in the form of certified copies of the case papers/treatment sheetCase No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002474
relating to treatment given to Smt. Sutar during 13.11.11 to 17.12.2011 in MbPT
Hospital.”. The CPIO vide her letter No. H/E/39/9926 dated 18.2.2012 denied
information on Point (b) and (c) of the RTI application u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the
RTI Act and provided information on Point (c) i.e. summary of the case.
3. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal
on 12.3.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. AA/RTI/FAA Order
5/2590 dated 11/12.4.2012 held that the preliminary enquiry report has to be
considered as confidential and further actions in the matter were required to be
taken. However, as Smt. Sutar is still undergoing treatment for the skin infection,
it is appropriate that the husband of the patient is supplied with the copies of
case papers indicating the treatment given to Smt. Sutar between 13.11.2011
and 16.12.2011, which the CPIO may do within ten days. The CPIO, in
compliance with the directions of the FAA, vide her letter No. 624 dated
21.4.2012 provided photocopies of case papers consisting of 97 pages to the
appellant.
4. The only issue in the present appeal is about non-supply of the report of
the Enquiry Committee submitted by Dr. Vinita Matta, who was appointed to
enquire into the treatment given to Smt. Parvati Mahadev Sutar in MbPT Hospital
from 13.11.2011 to 17.12.2011. A copy of the report has been denied by the
respondent on the grounds that enquiry into the matter, particularly how the
incident occurred, was still under enquiry by the Enquiry Committee. The
information to the appellant cannot be denied indefinitely on the ground that the
matter is still under enquiry even after so long. The Commission hereby directs
the CPIO to provide the findings of the report to the appellant free of cost within
two weeks of receipt of this order.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission with the above
directions/observations.
2Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002474
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
No comments:
Post a Comment