news details |
|
|
| SIC directs for making info public | | Pvt Practice by senior doctor of SKIMS | | Early Times Report
Srinagar, Sept 4: The State Information Commission (SIC) has directed the Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) Srinagar to reveal details about action taken by the authorities against a senior doctor of SKIMS who was involved in private practice which is completely banned for the doctors employed at SKIMS.
The said information was earlier denied under RTI Act to an information seeker who also happens to be a senior doctor in the same institute.
Details available with Early Times reveal that one Prof (Dr) Ghulam Nabi Yatoo a resident of Humhama Budgam sought details under J&K RTI Act 2009 from SKIMS officials (PIO) about the outcome of the letter forwarded to the Competent Authority by the SKIMS administration recommending therein the immediate suspension of Dr Altaf Shah who according to the attendance statement signed by the HOD was caught indulging in private practice by the Government agencies. Dr Yatoo had sought copies of the retrospective service benefits as Professor Gastroenterology given to the said doctor after doing this criminal act of private practice.
The Information was denied by the SKIMS Public Information Officer (PIO) by invoking the some provisions of RTI wherein the PIO termed this information as personal information / 3rd party information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also upheld the decision of the PIO. The case finally landed before the larger bench of J&K State Information Commission (SIC).
The commission in its judgement observed, "The Commission has gone through the facts of this case and has found that these facts are totally at variance from the facts of the case which is under appeal before this Commission. In this case, the information sought is not regarding personal assets, investments or performance as employee but information is sought in respect of the violation of standard government orders banning the private practice. Nobody can deny the fact that private practice conducted by a doctor, who is on the role of the government, affects the hundreds and thousands of patients and is thus overwhelmingly in public interest. Public should know whether a particular doctor, who is a government employee is also attending his private practice. This is a vital information which is needed for a patient so that he/she can choose whether he will consult such doctor in government hospital, whether he is performing primary job and getting remuneration or consult a private doctor, who is exclusively giving attention to his patients at a private clinic. The patient must have such independence. Therefore, this cannot be treated as a personal information. Secondly, there is a plethora of evidence and justification put on the record by the information seeker showing how this information is in overwhelmingly public interest. As the Hon'ble Court, even in the case referred above has held that if an appellate authority finds a public interest, even information which is covered under section 8(1)(d)(e) & (i) can be disclosed". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
