Early Times Report
Jammu, July 4: The State Information Commission (SIC) has dismissed an RTI appeal about abortions undertaken in the Akhnoor sub-district hospital (SDH) on the ground that it violates individuals' right to privacy.
The appeal was filed under J&K RTI Act 209. The information seeker was earlier denied information by the block medical officer (BMO), Akhnoor. He filed the 1st appeal before Director Health Services, Jammu, and the 2nd before SIC, but at both the places, his appeal was dismissed on the ground that this was a matter of privacy of individuals.
He had filed the application with PIO, BMO, SDH, Akhnoor on December 9, 2015, seeking information about the records of patients undergoing abortions in hospitals, list of patients with their names who underwent abortions in 1990, 1995, 1997 and 1999 and names of doctors who did these abortions.
The application was responded to by the BMO, SDH, Akhnoor who on January 6, 2016, informed him that no record could be traced for the years referred to in the application.
Aggrieved by the BMO's reply, he filed first appeal before Fist Appellate Authority (FAA) ie Director, Health Services, Jammu, on January 12, 2016 which was decided by Dr Baljeet Pathania, designated FAA on January 16, 2016. The FAA, while issuing orders, observed that information sought by the appellant, was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(i) and (8)(3) of the J&KRTI Act, 2009.
The appellant then filed 2nd appeal before the SIC on March 14, 2016 on the ground that PIO had deliberately denied information as asked in application and FAA did not provide an opportunity of being heard as per provisions laid down in the Act. He prayed before the Commission that information be provided and PIO be penalized for deliberate denial of information.
In compliance to the SIC notice, Dr Pathania filed counter reply vide letter dated March 24, 2016, stating that point 1 of RTI application did not come within the definition of "information", as defined under Section 2(d) of the J&KRTI Act, 2009. With regard to points 2 and 3, he submitted that this part of information comes under Section (8)(1)(i) and (8)(3) of the J&K RTI Act, as the information sought is personal in nature and has no relationship to any public activity or interest and is likely to affect the privacy of an individual, if disclosed. FAA said some part of the information was beyond the period of 20 years.
In compliance to SIC direction, the appellant filed rejoinder to the FAA's written statement on May 5, 2016, stating that in every government hospital, it was mandatory to keep patients' record who undergoes abortion, which includes registration slip, receipt of money charged , entry of the patient's name, age, residence. The name of doctor who examines the patient has also to be maintained in the patient's file along with referral notes, patients general condition, consent by patient/guardian. He referred to section 2(d) which defines 'information' and pleaded that, just by saying personal information, FAA cannot put a complete ban on providing information to the appellant. Appellant has further referred to Section 8 (Exemption clause) and submitted that PIO cannot deny information which involves larger public interest. He has also referred to proviso to Section 8(1)(i), which provides that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. It is alleged by the appellant that some doctors in connivance with some female employees are issuing fake medical certificates to get leave benefit without undergoing medical treatment in hospitals. Appellant has further submitted that regulations made under Medical Council of India Act, barring disclosure of information is a sub-ordinate legislation, as such, RTI Act prevail over them.
In compliance to SIC notice, Dr Panthania filed written arguments to the objections of the appellant vide letter dated May 17, 2016, stating that appellant had failed to comply with the SIC directions as he had not filed objections within time stipulated by the commission.
Following the statements and the counter statements of parties, SIC said as regards point 1, the appellant had simply asked about the records of patients undergoing abortions in hospitals. The contention of the FAA (Director Health) that this information does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(d) of the Act, is not tenable, as FAA himself in his counter statement has referred to Section 6 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Regulations, 2003, which provides for safe custody of admission register, which shall not be open for inspection, except under the authority of law. Therefore, this information is part of record and falls within definition of "information." So far as information at point-2 is concerned, appellant has asked for list of patients with their names and other particulars who underwent abortion in the 1990, 1995,1997 and 1999. Plea of the FAA is upheld that as per Section 5(1) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Regulations, 2003, as referred above by FAA at para 8, hospitals are not required to maintain records beyond period of five years. The contentions of the FAA with regard to point 2 & 3 that disclosure of such information is exempted under Section 8(1)(i), i.e., "personal information" relating to the privacy of the individuals is upheld on the ground that right to privacy is concomitant to right to life.
The order says: "Appellant has failed to made out his case that disclosure of information would serve large public interest, as against withholding of this information. Therefore, plea of the FAA for non disclosure of this information is upheld. Arguments of FAA that disclosure of information is hit by Section 8(3) of the Act-being older than 20 years is not in accordance with express provisions of the Act. Section 8(3) of the Act provides that any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened 20 years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section. In view of the above, the Akhnoor SDH PIO was directed to provide information on point-1 of the RTI application, as per records maintained at present, ie at the time filing of RTI application in December 2015 by severing /hiding that part of record, which may reveal identity of individual patients." With these directions and observations, the appeal was disposed of by the commission. |
