When Hospital authorities are liable to pay compensation to injured person under RTI ?

The Commission observes that the appellant who is a daily bread earner, is 
made to undergo lot of hardship to get the MLC.  As submitted by him, he was 
asked to come to the hospital on 6th, 9th, 10th 11th, 12th, 13th and 16th (7 days), was 
made   to   wait   and   was   not   given   the   MLC.     Therefore,   the   Commission 
considers   it   a   fit   case   for   granting   compensation   to   the   appellant   and 

accordingly  directs the  respondent  authority to  pay  to  the  appellant  a token 
compensation   of   Rs.7,000/­   for   making   an   injured   person   to   visit   the   office 
several times for giving the concerned documents, which they are legally bound 
to give  within 15 days.  The Commission also directs the respondent authority 
to provide compensation to the appellant based on their rules and regulations 
for causing mental agony and not treating him properly in giving him necessary 
documents to pursue the process of filing a criminal case against the suspected 
culprits.  
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, B­Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/C/2014/000408
Mr. Rajeev Kumar v. PIO, Aruna Asaf Ali , Governemnent
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI:2.7.2014 Reply: 14.7.2014 Time: ­­­
FAA: ­­­ FAO: ­­­ Time: 
Complaint: 29.9.2014 Hearing:22­1­15 Decision: 10-­02-­2015



2. Complainant want to know the team of doctors dealt with his case when he was 
admitted   in   emergency   ward;   why   X­ray   was   again   taken   before   making   of   MLC, 

reason for its enclosure, out of 3 copy of MLC why he is not entitle to a copy of his 
MLC, why X­ray report is shown pending MLC, how long it will take to enclose X­ray 
report to MLC, if it has to be enclosed by now, then who is responsible for this delay 
and negligence.
CPIO reply:
3. CPIO provided name of doctor and provide information on point no 2 & 3 but not for 
rest.
Ground For Complaint:
4.       For   not   providing   complete   information,   enquiry   to   be   conducted   against   the 
hospital.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
5.      Both the parties made their submissions.  The appellant is an outsourced 
employee in the Delhi Jal Board and his wages were to be paid by the L&T 

Company.   As he is agitating for his case through RTI applications, the said 
company in connivance with the Delhi Jal Board has manhandled him and the 
relevant MLC report which is to be given by the respondent Hospital, has been 
deliberately delayed by the Hospital in collusion with his employers.   With the 
result, the appellant alleged that a false MLC has been issued, that too they 
have   not   sent   any   copy  to   the   police   directly,   who   have   to   register   a   case 
against the employers.  The respondent officers on the other hand contended 
that they have provided the MLC report to the appellant and they showed the 
signature, which is not disputed. 
6.  The Commission observes that the appellant who is a daily bread earner, is 
made to undergo lot of hardship to get the MLC.  As submitted by him, he was 
asked to come to the hospital on 6th, 9th, 10th 11th, 12th, 13th and 16th (7 days), was 
made   to   wait   and   was   not   given   the   MLC.     Therefore,   the   Commission 
considers   it   a   fit   case   for   granting   compensation   to   the   appellant   and 

accordingly  directs the  respondent  authority to  pay  to  the  appellant  a token 
compensation   of   Rs.7,000/­   for   making   an   injured   person   to   visit   the   office 
several times for giving the concerned documents, which they are legally bound 
to give  within 15 days.  The Commission also directs the respondent authority 
to provide compensation to the appellant based on their rules and regulations 
for causing mental agony and not treating him properly in giving him necessary 
documents to pursue the process of filing a criminal case against the suspected 
culprits.  
6.     The Commission further directs the earlier PIO Mr. Kulwander Yadav to 
show cause  why maximum penalty cannot be imposed on him for not giving 
complete   information   during   his   tenure.     The   Commission   also   directs   the 
present PIO Mr. MS Premi to  show cause  for not imposing penalty for not 
giving complete information during his present tenure after he assumed office. 
Their explanations should reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the date 

of receipt of this order.
 7.   The Commission orders accordingly. 
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner 

Print Page