role of right to information in health

1

ROLE OF Right To Information

In Health

(By Mayank)

B.A.LLB. (Hons.). 8th Sem.

University Institute Of Law and Management, Gurugram

2

INDEX

Table of Contents

Concept of Right To Information- ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Role of R.T.I in Health- ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

The RTI Act and medical profession- .................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Exemption from disclosure- ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Denial under good faith ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Scenario in Mizoram: ............................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Public interest, patient privacy, and the RTI Act- ......................................................................................................................................... 14

Supreme Court Views – ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Management of the implementation process in India .......................................................................................................................................... 21

State Information Commissions Report on Health- ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Scenario in Jammu and Kashmir – ................................................................................................................................................................ 22

Complaint/2nd appeal cases filed in the Commission against various administrative departments including the public

authorities/HODs under their control and other organizations during 2013-14:- .................................................................................... 22

Complaints/2nd appeal cases disposed of by the Commission during 2013-14- ..................................................................................... 23

Following table gives a sum total of RTI applications received by the Administrative Departments which also includes the sub-

ordinate HODs/organizations falling under their purview:- .................................................................................................................... 23

3

Based on the comprehensive data reflected in the statement given at Annexure A of the Annual report of State Information

Commission of Jammu and Kashmir, the Health Department received RTI applications during 2013-14 are listed out in the table

given below: ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24

Statement of information furnished by Public Authorities under Section 22 (Monitoring & Reporting)of the J&K RTI Act, 2009- .... 25

Scenario In Himachal Pradesh- ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27

Disposal of Applications/ Appeals by the Public Information Officers/ First Appellate Authorities of Public Health in Himachal

Pradesh during the Year 2013-14, ........................................................................................................................................................... 27

Scenario In Karnataka- ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Penalties imposed by the Commission: ................................................................................................................................................... 28

Compensation awarded by the Commission: ........................................................................................................................................... 28

Number of Public Authorities and Public Information Officers [Section 5(1)]- ..................................................................................... 29

Requests for Information filed Under Sec.6 of the RTI Act and their Disposal by the Public Information Officers- ............................ 29

Number of requests rejected Under Section 8(1) and on other grounds by the State Public Information Officers- ............................... 30

Disposal of Appeals by First Appellate Authorities filed under Sec.19(1) of the Act- ........................................................................... 30

Summary of Fees Collected by Public Authorities - ............................................................................................................................... 31

Disposal of Complaints by the Commission (department-wise) under section 18(1)- ............................................................................ 31

Disposal of Second Appeals by the Commission (department-wise) under section 19(3)- .................................................................... 32

Scenario In Tamil Nadu- ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

RTI applications handled during the Calendar Year 2012 ....................................................................................................................... 33

Secretariat Departments / Head of Departments / Public Undertakings / Disposal of applications by Public Information Officers- .... 33

Details of request for Information rejected by Public Information Officers in Health- .......................................................................... 36

4

Disposal of Information requests by the Public Information Officers- ................................................................................................... 38

Disposal of First Appeals by the First Appellate Authorities- ................................................................................................................. 40

Scenario In Sikkim- ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 42

Statement of implementation by Public Authorities /PSUs under Section 25(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005- .................................. 42

Scenario In Meghalaya- ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Department wise receipt and disposal of Complaints by the Commission during the year 2015- .......................................................... 44

Disposal of Information Requests by Public Information Officers/Public Authorities Reporting Year: 2015- ...................................... 45

Disposal of First Appeals by the Departmental Appellate Authorities Reporting Year: 2015- .............................................................. 46

Information Requests rejected by the PIOs/Public authorities: Reporting Year: 2015- .......................................................................... 47

Summary of Costs, Fees & Charges Collected by Public Authorities: Reporting Year: 2015- .............................................................. 48

Scenario In Punjab- .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 49

Reports received from Departments/ Public Authorities u/s 25 of the RTI Act ...................................................................................... 49

Reports received from Departments/ First Appellate Authorities- .......................................................................................................... 49

HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE – ............................................................................................................................................................ 50

REPORT UNDER SECTION 25 RECEIVED FROM 26 PUBLIC AUTHORITIES: ........................................................................... 50

Reports received from Departments/ First Appellate Authorities- ................................................................................................................ 52

HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE: ........................................................................................................................................................ 52

Scenario In Assam – ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 55

Number of Public Authorities & State Public Information Officers under Health Department- ............................................................ 55

Number of RTI application received and disposed by State Public Information Officers under Health Department- ........................... 55

5

Number of First Appeal Petitions received and disposed by First Appellate Authorities- ...................................................................... 56

Scenario In Mizoram- .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 57

YEAR - 2015 – 2016. Implementation of the provision of Section 4 of RTI Act 2005: ......................................................................... 57

YEAR – 2015 – 2016. Implementation of the provision of Section 5 of RTI Act 2005- ........................................................................ 57

YEAR - 2015 – 2016. Implementation of the provision of Section 6 of RTI Act 2005- ........................................................................ 57

YEAR - 2015 – 2016. Implementation of the provision of Section 7 of RTI Act 2005- ........................................................................ 58

YEAR - 2015 – 2016. Implementation of the provision of Section 8 & 9 of RTI Act 2005- ................................................................. 58

YEAR - 2015 – 2016. Implementation of the provision of Section 19 of RTI Act 2005- ...................................................................... 59

Scenario In Tripura- ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 60

Disposal of request for information by the SPIOs during the period under report: ....................................................................................... 60

Status of disposal of the requests for information by the State Public Information Officers based on the Annual Reports furnished

(2013-14)- ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 60

Classification of Information sought by the petitioners Information Seekers- ........................................................................................ 60

Status of Applications Received under The RTI Act From 2006-07 to 2013-14 By Directorate Of Family Welfare- ........................... 61

Applications Disposed Under The Act From Health Department Having Large Public Interface Since 2006-2014- ............................ 61

Status of Applications Received Under The Act From Heath And Family Welfare Having Large Public Interface And Their Status Of

Disposal During 2013-14-........................................................................................................................................................................ 62

Status of Fees Collected Under Section 6(1) and Section 7(1) Under The Act- ..................................................................................... 62

Scenario In Haryana- ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 63

REGISTER OF REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION & DISPOSAL OF REQUESTS UNDER RTI ACT, 2005 ................................ 63

Annual report Of Central Information Commission- ........................................................................................................................................... 64

6

Summary of returns by the Public Authorities in Health Department- ................................................................................................... 64

RTI application and their rejections in top 20 (as per RTI request) Ministries / Departments- .............................................................. 64

Number of RTI request, First Appeal and Second Appeal/Complaints received in top 20 (as per RTI request) Ministries/Departments-

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64

Status Report on the Submission of RTI Annual Return- ....................................................................................................................... 65

Ministry-wise List of Public Authorities who have not submitted Annual Return- ............................................................................................ 65

Ministry-wise List of Public Authorities who have submitted Annual Return- .................................................................................................. 66

Conclusion- .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71

Suggestions- ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 72

References- .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74

ANNUAL Reports – ................................................................................................................................................................................ 74

Cases- ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 75

7

Role Of RTI In Health

Concept of Right To Information-

Right to information is an act to provide for setting out the practical regiem of right to information for citizens to secure

access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the

working of every public authority.

The participants in a democratic system have a right to know what, how and why of any decision is made or change by the

government and its functioning. This right is inherent in citizens by virtue of their owning the system. Therefore, citizen’s

right to information follows, as a natural corollary in a democracy and any attempt to wide information or to create opacity

cannot augur well for its health. Some conscious citizens and civil society organization have constantly raised the demand

for an effective provision for the right to information. Dwelling on the relation of Constitutional right to freedom of

expression and the right to life, various judicial pronouncements endorsed its legal justification. It is expedient to provide

for furnishing certain information to citizen who desires to heave it. In a government where all the agencies of the public

must be responsible for their conduct, there cannot but few secrets. The people have a right to know every public act,

everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. The responsibility of officials is to explain not to

justify, their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption. So the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 is

widely seen as a watershed development in Indian democracy. It provides citizens the right to secure access to information

8

under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability. . It is often held to be an

effective tool to control corruption, make government accountable, and curb the arbitrary use of power. The question here is

whether it can be used to justify the breach of a patient’s or research subject’s confidentiality.

Role of R.T.I in Health-

Introduction-

Health literacy is “the degree to which individuals can obtain, process, and understand the basic health information and

services they need to make appropriate health decisions.” It represents a constellation of skills necessary for people to

function effectively in the health care environment and act appropriately on health care information. These skills include the

ability to interpret documents, read and write prose (print literacy), use quantitative information (numeracy), and speak and

listen effectively (oral literacy).

In order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and to empower the citizens to

secure access to information under the control of each public authority, the Government of India has brought out an Act,

namely, “The Right to Information Act, 2005”, (RTI Act) which came into force on 15.6.2005. In accordance with the

provisions of section 4(1)(b) of this Act, the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu has

brought out this manual for information and guidance of the stakeholders and the general public.

9

The purpose of this is that to inform the general public about this Department’s organisational set-up, functions and duties

of its officers and employees, records and documents available with the Department. The main aim is to provide public

general and users of the services and provides information about the schemes, projects and programmes being implemented

by the Department of Health and Family Welfare and the organizations under its administrative control.

The RTI Act and medical profession-

The Right To Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) is intended to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to

information for citizen to secure access to information under the control of public authority in order to promote transparency

and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a central information commission and state

information commission and for matter connected there with or incidental there to.

While professing medicine a Register Medical Practitioner (RMP) may come across medical as well as medico legal case.

In first situation, it is the patient who discloses his health details in form of history, physical examination and investigations.

In the later situation such exercise is under taken by RMP on requisition by police or court as a competent authority to order

medico legal examination with or without consent, as the case may be. As far as medical case is concerned S. 2.2 of the

Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002, states that “Confidences

concerning individual a domestic life entrusted by patients to a Physician and defect in the deposition or character of

patients observed during medical attendances should never be revealed unless there revelation is required by the laws of the

10

State.” The similar spirit of “Profession Secrecy” is also reflected in various provisions of The Medical Termination of

Pregnancy Regulations, 1975, in which record-having details of the aborted women have to be kept SECRET. Whenever

there is conflict between two persons worth civil or criminal trials, one of the parties may be eager to procure as many as of

information about other party with intention of strengthening his side or weakening opponent’s side. Thus, his spouse or its

counsel may demand information pertaining to a particular person. For example, in one case of suicide by female,( u/s 306

of IPC )the defense lawyer procured some medical records pertaining deceased from a psychiatrist (private

practitioner)about her treatment under provisions of RTI Act and produced the treating psychiatrist as defense witness, of

course to link the mental ill health and suicide by the deceased. [U/s 231 of Cr.P.C. in a trial before a court of Sessions,

judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and subsequently u/s 313 of

Cr.P.C. accused is allowed to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him]. Under the circumstances,

treating psychiatrist was just to share patient information as per S. 2.2 of IMC Regulations 2002, which states that

information can be reveled if required by the laws of State. Similar circumstances may arise in a medico legal case where

the accused or his legal representative may ask for any information of the case and as per Ss. 6 (2) of RTI Act “an applicant

making request for information shall not be required to give any reasons for requesting the information or any other

personnel details except those may be necessary for contacting him.” Though, the decision of entertaining such applications

has to be taken by “ State public Information Officer” or his subordinate, the Forensic fraternity shall have knowledge of

some relevant sections of narrated as follows:

11

Exemption from disclosure-

8(1) notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,

b] Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of

which may constitute contempt of court.

h] Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Right to Information Act, 2005 has inherent tension between conflicting rights i.e. right to privacy, right to autonomy,

public interest etc. especially pertaining to medical profession. Many situations do come in direct confrontation with RTI as

in case of Medico legal Reports, Post-mortem Reports, medical records etc. many such issues come for appeal before

appellate authorities i.e. Central Appellate Authority appointed under Central Information and various courts including High

Courts and Supreme Court of India. Many conflicting judgments of CIC, and courts in these matters further confused the

issue of RTI and medical profession.

Denial under good faith

No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or

intended to be done under this Act or any rule made there under.

Summarily, any information [here, related to MLC and medical case] desired by an applicantmaking request to “State

Public Information Officer” and in turn to be disseminated by a RMP in medical case or in medicolegal case shall be

12

entertained in the light of above among other provisions of the Act. The provision the of the Act are general and not

specifically expressed for medical profession and hence subject to interpretation by legal authorities in case of contested

interpretation as the case may be. In developed countries like USA, there is a separate chapter on “Confidentiality of

Medical Information Act” in California Civil Code Section 56-56.16, having categorical emphasis on physician-patient

relationship and confidentiality of medical information. It is the right time that Forensic fraternity shall gear up themselves

to frame and suggest a uniform guideline in accordance with the present provision of the Act or even suggest unequivocal

amendments in the Act referring to medical information.

In a case .Selvanathan @ Raghavan and 9 Others vs. State by Inspector of Police, Madras and Others1 wherein the

Full Bench of Madras High Court has held: "... At any rate, R.339 (of the Criminal Rules of Practice) does not postulate

that the accused is entitled to copies at any stage. Held that accused are not entitled to certified copies of the Post-mortem

certificate, requisition given by the police officers to the Medical Officer for conducting post-mortem and medically treating

the injured, before the final report is forwarded to the Magistrate, as contemplated under S.173(2) of the Code”.

Only person affected in natural and accidental way can request for it; Court, police, and public authorities can ask as per

the law of land. Medico-legal cases also include cases referred by Courts of law, and other prosecuting agencies to the

hospital, wherein disclosure of information/supply of records to the parties involved in the medico legal cases, can very well

be withheld by the hospital, as this would be obligatory on the part of the hospital, matter being sub-judice. Such

information is also exempt under RTI Act, and has been upheld by CIC.

1 20 March, 2015 H.C. Madras

13

Certified copy of PMR/MLR cannot be issued under RTI and is covered under the Exemption of Section 8(1) (j) of

RTI Act as per various decisions of Central Information Commission.

In another landmark case of Veerapan encounter2, Madras High court while dismissing the petition filed by the wife of

deceased for asking post-mortem report of his husband under RTI held that “In consideration of the facts pleaded,

having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras and senior counsel, what this Court could assess is that the petitioner is the wife of

Veerapan who was killed along with three others by the Tamil Nadu Special Task Force, no mention need be made that he

was wanted in many number of cases ranging from murder to forest offences”.

Scenario in Mizoram:

Further RTI Act 2005 Manual of Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Mizoram states that Post mortem

report is considered to be classified item as such; the report cannot be disclosed to the public without the authority of 1st

Class Magistrate. If affected party is asking for a record in road traffic accidents or where some issues of compensation or

some relief is there, then attested photocopy of the record can be given to the victim or next of kin on written request. A

production fee can be officially decided by the hospital as a part of its declared policy. In cases, where injuries are

produced as part of criminal offence then leakage of information before Police file a challan in the court of law,

unauthorized leakage or communication is not permitted.

2 J Indian Acad Forensic Med. Jan-March 2013, Vol. 35, No. 1

14

Public interest, patient privacy, and the RTI Act-

Due to this need to interpret “public activity or interest”, patients, subjects, clinicians, and PIOs have reason to be

confused-and concerned-about the degree to which the RTI Act threatens the confidentiality of medical and research

records.

In a 2007 judgment, the Central Information Commission (CIC) specifically upheld that information regarding the purpose

and results of medical testing was exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act because it was, as the PIO had initially

determined, “personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and would

cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual”. Further, the CIC held the information had been made available

within the doctor-patient fiduciary relationship, and was also exempt from disclosure on that ground. The party seeking the

test results in this case did not allege a public interest in the information, but a “genuine right to seek” it as the estranged

parent of the patient. This CIC judgment therefore provides little guidance in deciding what would constitute a relevant and

overriding public interest.

Traditionally, protection of the health and safety of specific individuals or the public from serious risks is the most

justifiable interpretation of a public interest to permit breaching patient confidentiality (4). Examples of breach typically

justified by overriding interests are breaching a psychiatric patient’s confidentiality to prevent him from committing suicide;

breaching a patient’s confidentiality to prevent him from transmitting a serious communicable disease to identified others;

or reporting a patient as being unfit for particular work (e.g. as an airline pilot) because of a medical condition.

15

In3 the first case, the state’s interest in protecting life may override the person’s own interest in confidentiality. In the latter

two examples, it is others’ interests in health and safety that might justify breaching confidentiality. In the second case, the

others are identifiable-the patient’s family or coworkers while in the third example, the others are simply whoever might

someday fly in the plane.

The April 2007 judgment by the Maharashtra State Information Commission (SIC) departed from this traditional

interpretation of what constitutes an overriding public interest that may outweigh patients’ interests in confidentiality. The

SIC directed a PIO to comply with an RTI Act request for the medical record of a prominent former public official

who had been incarcerated. The “public interest” allegedly served in this case was not a forward-looking health-related

interest typically invoked in such weighings against medical confidentiality. Instead, it was suspected that the incarcerated

individual used his political clout to falsify medical symptoms and serve the majority of his one-month sentence in a

hospital rather than a prison. The RTI Act request was filed in the public interest of exposing corruption in the political or

penal system. This SIC finding was unfortunate because the public’s interest in the integrity of the penal system could have

been adequately served by a measures less intrusive than breaching patient confidentiality by making the prisoner’s medical

record public in order to address “a feeling in the minds of people” regarding corruption in the penal system.

3

16

Supreme Court Views –

In the Case of The State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain and Others4 wherein it has been held: "In a government of responsibility

like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people

of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries.

They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. The right to know, which is derived

from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is

claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security. To cover with veil of secrecy,

the common routine business is not in the interest of the public. Such secrecy can seldom be legitimately desired. It is

generally desired for the purpose of parties and politics or personal self-interest or bureaucratic routine. The responsibility

of officials to explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption. To justify a privilege,

secrecy must be indispensable to induce freedom of official communication or efficiency in the transaction of official

business and it must be further a secrecy which has remained or would have remained inviolable but for the compulsory

disclosure. In how many transactions of official business is there ordinarily such as secrecy? If there arises at any time a

genuine instance of such otherwise inviolate secrecy, let the necessity of maintaining it be determined on its merits."

4 . 1975 AIR 865,1975 SCR(3) 333

17

In an another case of Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another5 wherein the Honorable Apex

Court referring to its earlier judgment delivered in Dinesh Trivedi M.P. and Others vs. Union of India and Others6,

would held: "The right to get information in democracy is recognized all throughout and it is natural right flowing from the

concept of democracy. At this stage, we would refer to Article 19(1) and (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights which is as under:

(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart

information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through

any other media of his choice."

In a case it was observed that “One basic fact regarding the ownership of medico legal records, is that the medico legal

documents, especially the post-mortem report belongs to the requestor i.e. the police and the same is held by the doctor in

fiduciary relationship”. It was decided in Baba Gurcharan's case in eighties, a MLC becomes a public document only when

it is filed in the court.

In a 12 Jan 2010 judgment by Delhi High Court, a three judge bench decided that medical details of an individual cannot

be made public and cannot be given under RTI. Copy of Post-mortem Report (PMR) cannot be given to the claimant wife

5. 2002 AIR 2112; 2002 (3) SCR 294 6.20 March, 1997

18

of deceased held in another landmark case. Copy of Medical Record (MR) cannot be given held by Delhi High Court in

January 2010. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorized attendant or legal authorities

involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours. Medical

records cannot be given to another person until unless authorized by patient, as doctor is duty bound to maintain

confidentiality of patient as per the MCI Regulations 2002. Regulations reads as “Confidences concerning individual or

domestic life entrusted by patients to a physician and defects in the disposition or character of patients observed during

medical attendance should never be revealed unless their revelation is required by the laws of the State. Sometimes,

however, a physician must determine whether his duty to society requires him to employ knowledge, obtained through

confidence as a physician, to protect a healthy person against a communicable disease to which he is about to be exposed.

In such instance, the physician should act as he would wish another to act toward one of his known family in like

circumstances”.

It may amount to professional misconduct on the part of physician, Regulations read as “If he/she does not maintain the

medical records of his/her indoor patients for a period of three years as per regulation 1.3 and refuses to provide the same

within 72 hours when the patient or his/her authorized representative makes a request for it as per the regulation 1.4.2.”

In a case of Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007)7 Since the Code of Ethics Regulations are only

delegated legislation, it was held in the case of Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik v. State Of Maharashtra, that these would not

7.AIR 2007 Bom 121, 2007 (109) Bom L R 844, 2007 (4) MhLj 573

19

prevail over the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) unless the information sought for falls under the exceptions

contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act. In this case health records of a convict were sought to be made public under the RTI

Act to find out why he’s been allowed to stay in hospital instead of jail. Dealing with the right to privacy in this context the

Bombay High Court held that: “The law as discussed may now be set out. The confidentiality required to be maintained of

the medical records of a patient including a convict considering the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India

cannot override the provisions of the Right to Information Act. If there be inconsistency between the Regulations and

the Right to Information Act, the provisions of the Act would prevail over the Regulations and the information will have to

be made available in terms of the Act. The Act, however, carves out some exceptions, including the release of personal

information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted

invasion of the right to privacy. In such cases discretion has been conferred on the concerned Public Information Officer to

make available the information, if satisfied, that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure. This discretion must be

exercised, bearing in mind the facts of each case and the larger public interest. Normally records of a person sentenced or

convicted or remanded to police or judicial custody, if during that period such person is admitted in hospital and nursing

home, should be made available to the person asking the information provided such hospital nursing home is maintained by

the State or Public Authority or any other Public Body. It is only in rare and in exceptional cases and for good and valid

reasons recorded in writing can the information may be denied. In those cases where the information sought cannot be

denied to either Parliament or State Legislature, as the case may be, then the information cannot be denied unless the third

person satisfies the authority that Parliament/Legislature is not entitled to the information. There is no discretion in such

cases to be exercised by the concerned Information Officer. The information has to be either granted or rejected, as the case

20

may be. Every public authority, whose expenditure is met partly or wholly from the funds voted by the

Parliament/Legislature or Government funds are availed off is accountable to Parliament/Legislature, as they have interest

to know that the funds are spent for the object for which they are released and the employees confirm to the Rules. The

conduct of the employees of such an organisation subject to their statutory rights can also be gone into. If patients are to be

admitted in hospital for treatment then those employees in the hospital are duty bound to admit only those who are eligible

for admission and medical treatment. The records of such institution, therefore,, ought to be available to Parliament or the

State Legislature. The Parliament/Legislature and/or its Committees are entitled to the records even if they be confidential

or personal records of a patient. Once a patient admits himself to a hospital the records must be available to

Parliament/Legislature, provided there is no legal bar. We find no legal bar, except the provisions of the Regulations framed

under the Indian Medical Council Act. Those provisions, however, would be inconsistent with the proviso to Section 8(1)(j)

of the Right to Information Act. The Right to Information Act would, therefore, prevail over the said Regulations.”

Case Highlights-

The Right to Information Act, 2005 would prevail over an exercise in subordinate legislation such as the MCI Code

of Ethics.

The health records of a person in police or judicial custody, if admitted to a State or government hospital during the

custody, should be made available under the RTI Act, and should be denied only in exceptional cases for good and

valid reasons.

21

Management of the implementation process in India

As India moves towards implementation, two points are worth keeping in mind: - First, no country (with the possible

exception of China – and the political contexts are barely comparable) has ever taken on such a complex endeavor at such

massive scale. The 12th 5-Year Plan rightly recognizes that the pursuit of UHC will last for at least 2–3 plan periods – that

is, 10–15 years – requiring strategies to go beyond any script in any one plan. Therefore rather than over-prescribing

detailed recipes taken from anywhere else, in our opinion attention needs to be paid by policy makers to identifying priority

issues, key implementation challenges and main barriers, customizing solutions across the four health system functions; -

Second, implementation needs to be accompanied by analysis, so that the solutions are found through policy analysis and

research embedded into implementation. This calls for strengthening “evidence-to-policy” links and the intelligence

dimension of stewardship as well as the necessary accountability. State-level experiences and good practices will need to be

documented and circulated in each State, informing also decision-making in others. In parallel with making policy choices

in terms of processes, India needs to carefully design the institutional/organizational arrangements for implementation. The

tools, management of partnerships, access to up-to date health analyses for informed decision making, etc. need to be

crafted. Clear system goals and the corresponding short-, medium- and long-term interventions need to be articulated and

negotiated with the various stakeholders (public and private) at all territorial levels, across sectors. Incentives need to be

devised to increase transparency. Professional self-regulation and a high-level inspectorate could be promoted in our

opinion, with key stakeholders’ participation – at least at the level of policy design. Patient empowerment could be

increased as necessary by acting on the Right to Information Act 2005 (modified in 2011) [73] – e.g. by individualized

personal identification medical cards, facilitated formulation of complaints in case of abuse as adequate, etc.

22

State Information Commissions Report on Health-

Scenario in Jammu and Kashmir8 –

The Jammu and Kashmir State Information Commission started the year 2013-14 with and opening balance of 134

complaint/appeal cases in which Health & Med. Education and PHE departments having accounted for 41 cases each.

Complaint/2nd appeal cases filed in the Commission against various administrative departments including the

public authorities/HODs under their control and other organizations during 2013-14:-

S.No.- Administrative Department including its sub-ordinate

Depts./ other organizations

No. Of cases

1.

Health & Medical Edu.

41

8http://jksic.nic.in/

23

Complaints/2nd appeal cases disposed of by the Commission during 2013-14-

S.No.- Administrative Department including its sub-ordinate

Depts./ other organizations

No. Of comp/Appeals

disposed of

1.

Health & Medical Edu

41

Following table gives a sum total of RTI applications received by the Administrative Departments which also

includes the sub-ordinate HODs/organizations falling under their purview:-

S.No.

Adm. Deptt including its HODs-

No. of RTI applications received during 2013-14

1.

Health & Med.Edu.

1064

24

Based on the comprehensive data reflected in the statement given at Annexure A of the Annual report of State

Information Commission of Jammu and Kashmir, the Health Department received RTI applications during 2013-14

are listed out in the table given below:

S.No

Name of Public Authority/department

No. of applications received

1. Public Health Engg. Deptt. Jammu 795

2. Health Services Jammu 398

3. Health Services Kashmir 176

4. Public Health Engg. Kashmir 119

25

Statement of information furnished by Public Authorities under Section 22 (Monitoring & Reporting)of the J&K

RTI Act, 2009-

S.No. Name Of The Department/PA No. Of Requests

received by each

Public Authority

during the

period for the

year 2013-14

No. applications

rejected

pursuant to

different sections

of the act.

Amount of

appln. Fee

(charges for

providing copies)

collected under

the act.

No. of 1st appeals

received by FAA

No. of 1st appeals

if any referred to

SIC by FAA.

Health & Medical Education Department.

No.

received

No.

disposed

of

1. Health & Medical Education

Department (Secretariat)

103 03 905

2. Directorate of Health Services

Jammu

398 13 9682

3. Directorate of Health Services

Kashmir.

176 0 2077 14 0 0

4. Directorate of Indian Systems of

Medicine J&K

0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Dental College Jammu 19 0 195 0 0 0

6. Dental College Kashmir 15 2 120 3 3 0

7. Sheri-i-Kashmir Institute of 98 0 1700 0 0 0

26

Medical Sciences.

8. SKIMS Medical College (JVC) 19 0 500 0 0 0

9. GMC, Srinagar 104 05 2661 11 11 0

10. GMC, Jammu 19 0 195 0 0 0

11. Project Director AIDS. 2 0 20 0 0 0

12. Director Family Welfare J&K 7 0 60 0 0 0

13. Controller of Drugs & Food

Control Organization.

42 ------------- 2750 1 1 0

14. Director, National Health

Mission, J&K, Jammu

46 ------------- 630 2 2 0

15. Govt. Psychiatric Disease

Hospital

16 0 0 0 0 0

Sub Total 1064 23 21495 31 17 0

27

Scenario In Himachal Pradesh9-

Disposal of Applications/ Appeals by the Public Information Officers/ First Appellate Authorities of Public Health in

Himachal Pradesh during the Year 2013-14,

S.No. Name of

Public

Authority

Number of

applications

received

Applications

rejected by the

PIOs

Appeals filed

before the First

Appellate

Authorities

Appeals filed

before the State

Information

Commission

Number of cases

where compensation

was awarded by the

Commission

Number of cases where

penalty was imposed

by the Commission

Amount of

fee

collected

1. Irrigation &

Public Health

47 ------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ 1963

2. Health and

Family

Welfare

479 69 42 2 ---------- 9131

3. Irrigation &

Public Health

Annual Report not submitted by the Public

Authority

17 3 1 -----------

9.http://admis.hp.nic.in/sic/

28

Scenario In Karnataka10-

Penalties imposed by the Commission:

Section 19(8)(c) of the R.T.I. Act empowers the State Information Commission to impose penalties on the State Public

Information Officers as provided in section 20(1) of the Act.

During the year the Commission imposed a total penalty of Rs. 16945500/- on the PIOs of 27 departments.

S. No Department name Penalty Imposed in Rs.

1. Health, Family Welfare and Medical Education

Department

117000

Compensation awarded by the Commission:

Under Section 19(8)(b) of the R.T.I act Commission is empowered to direct the Public Authorities to compensate the

appellants for the loss or other determent suffered by them, During the year, the Commission awarded compensation to 930

appellants amounting to Rs. 1435120/.

S. No. Department Compensation Awarded in Rs.

1. Health, Family Welfare & Medical Education

Department

11000

10.http://kic.gov.in

29

Number of Public Authorities and Public Information Officers [Section 5(1)]-

S.No. Name of the Department No of Public Authorities No of Public Information Officers Designated

1. Health, Family Welfare & Medical

Education Department

36 2568

Requests for Information filed Under Sec.6 of the RTI Act and their Disposal by the Public Information Officers-

S.No. Name of the Department Requests pending

at the beginning

of the year

No. of Requests

received during the

year

Total No. of

Requests

No of

requests

Disposed

Requests pending

at the end of the

year

1. Health, Family Welfare &

Medical Education Department

106

12480

12586

12326

260

30

Number of requests rejected Under Section 8(1) and on other grounds by the State Public Information Officers-

Disposal of Appeals by First Appellate Authorities filed under Sec.19(1) of the Act-

S.NO. Name of the

Department

First Appeals pending

with Appellate

authorities at the

beginning of the year

No of First Appeals

received by Appellate

authorities during the

Year

Total No of First Appeals

with Appellate Authorities

No of First Appeals

Disposed by Appellate

authorities

No of First Appeals

pending with FAAs

1. Health, Family

Welfare &

Medical

Education

Department

1

1546

1547

1520

27

S.No Name of the Department Sec.

8(1)(a)

Sec.

8(1)(b)

Sec.

8(1)(c)

Sec

.8(1)(d)

Sec.

8(1)(e)

Sec.

8(1)(f)

Sec.

8(1)(g)

Sec.

8(1)(h)

Sec

.8(1)(i)

Sec.

8(1)(j)

Other

Sec.

TOTAL

1.

Health, Family Welfare &

Medical Education

Department

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

7

31

Summary of Fees Collected by Public Authorities -

Disposal of Complaints by the Commission (department-wise) under section 18(1)-

S.No. Name Of The

Department

No of Complaints

pending at the end

of last yea

No of Complaints

received during the year

Total No of

Complaints

No of Complaints

Disposed

No of Complaints

pending

1.

Health, Family

Welfare &

Medical

Education

Department

00

73

73

52

21

S.No.

Name of Department

Total Collection Amt. in . Rs.

1.

Health, Family Welfare & Medical Education Department

61,623.00

32

Disposal of Second Appeals by the Commission (department-wise) under section 19(3)-

.

Under this table, the no. of 2nd appeals pending and received in the commission at the end of the year, total no. of 2nd appeals and how many

disposed and pending during the year.

S.No. Name of The

Department

No of Second Appeals

pending in the

Commission at end of last

Year


received during the

Year

Total No of Second

Appeals


Disposed

No. of Second

Appeals Pending

1.

Health &

Family

Welfare

Department

37

129

166

163

03

33

Scenario In Tamil Nadu11-

RTI applications handled during the Calendar Year 2012-

S.No. Administrative Department No of applications handled % to Total

1. Health and Family Welfare 5255 1.472 5255 1472

Secretariat Departments / Head of Departments / Public Undertakings / Disposal of applications by Public

Information Officers-

S.No Name of

Department

No. of requests

made to each

Public

Authority

Number of

decisions where

applicants not

entitled to

access to the

documents

Number of

Appeals referred

to the State

Information

Commission for

review

Particulars of any

Disciplinary

Action taken

against any officer

in respect of

administration of

the Act

Amount of

charges

collected (in

Rs.)

Efforts by

Public

Authorities to

administer and

implement the

Act

Recommendati

on s for

reform,

development,

improvement,

modernization

or amendment

to the Act

11.http://www.tnsic.gov.in

34

Sec.25(3)(a) Sec.25(3)(b) Sec.25(3)(c) Sec.25(3)(d) Sec.25(3)(e) Sec.25(3)(f) Sec.25(3)(g)

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT.

1. Health and Family

Welfare

Department,

Secretariat.

714

6

------------

---------------

1343

-----------

---------

2. Director of

Medical and Rural

Health Services.

852

1

4

---------------

4360

-----------

---------

3. Director of

Medical and Rural

Health Services

(ESI).

164

2

------------

---------------

700

-----------

---------

4. Director of

Medical Education.

1845

------------

5

---------------

877

-----------

--------

5. Director of Public

Health and

Preventive

Medicine.

752

12

5

--------------

12056

-----------

---------

6. Director of Family

Welfare.

60

-------------

------------

---------------

-----------

-----------

---------


Welfare.

35

243 ------------- 3 ---------------- 2949 ----------- ---------

8. Commissioner of

Indian Medicine

and Homoeopathy.

155

18

------------

---------------

1950

-----------

--------

9.

Tamil Nadu State

Health Transport

Department

21

-------------

-------------

---------------

60

-----------

--------

10.

The Tamil Nadu

Health Systems

Project

96

-------------

------------

----------------

-----------

-----------

--------

11. Tamil Nadu

Medical Services

Corporation

77

-------------

-------------

---------------

522

-----------

--------

12. State Health

Society

27

13. Commissioner of

Food Safety and

Drugs

Administration

136

--------------

-------------

----------------

-----------

-----------

--------

14. The Tamil Nadu

State Aids Control

53

1

1

----------------

3108

-----------

--------

36

Society

15. The Tamil Nadu

State Blindness

Control Society

9

-------------

-------------

----------------

-----------

-----------

--------

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT.

1. Director of

Industrial Safety

and Health.

690

-------------

3

----------------

1245

-----------

-------

Details of request for Information rejected by Public Information Officers in Health-

S.No Name Of The Department No. Of Requests rejected under

HEALTH &FAMILY WELFARE

DEPARTMENT

Sec

8(1)

(a)

Sec

8(1)

(b)

Sec

8(1)

(c)

Sec

8(1)

(d)

Sec

8(1)

(e)

Sec

8(1)

(f)

Sec

8(1)

(g)

Sec

8(1)

(h)

Sec

8(1)

(i)

Sec

8(1)

(j)

Sec.9 Sec.11 Sec.24 Other Total

1. Health & Family Welfare

Department, Secretariat.

---- ------ ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- 6 ---- ------ ----- ------ ------ 11 17

2. Director of Medical Education. ---- ------ ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ ------

3. Director of Medical & Rural

Health Services.

1 2 ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- 2 ---- ------ ----- ------ ------ 3 8

4 Director of Medical & Rural

Health Services (ESI).

---- ------ ---- ---- 9 ------ ----- 3 ---- 9 ----- ------ ------ 8 29

37

5. Director of Public Health

&Preventive Medicine.

1 ------ ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- 1 ---- 1 ----- ------ ------ 9 12

6. Director of Family Welfare. --- ----- --- ---- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ------ ------- ------- -------

7. Tamil Nadu State Health

Trans. Dept.

---- ------ ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- 1 ----- ------ ------ ------ 1

8. Director of Drugs Control. ---- ------ ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- 2 ---- ------ ----- ------ ------ 2 2

9. Commissioner of Indian

Medicine and Homoeopathy

---- ------ ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- 18 ----- ------ ------ ------ 18

10. Tamil Nadu Medical Services

Corp. Ltd.

---- ------ ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ ------

11. The Tamil Nadu Health

Systems Project

---- ------ ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ---- --- ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ ------

12. State Health Society ---- ------ ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ ------

13. Commissioner of Food Safety

and Drugs Admin.

3 2 1 17

------ ------

6 4 13

11 ----- ------ ------- ------- 57

14. The Tamil Nadu State Aids

Control Society

---- ------ ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ------ ----- ------ ------ 1 1

15. The Tamil Nadu State

Blindness Control Society

---- ------ ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ ------

Total 5 4 1 17 9 ----- 6 18 13 40 ----- ------ ------- 34 147

38

Disposal of Information requests by the Public Information Officers-

S.No. Name of the

Department

No. of

PIOs

No. of

requests

pending as

on

31.12.2011

No. of

requests

received

during the

year 2012

Total No.

of request

(Colum n

4+5)

No. requests

transferred to

the other

Public

Authorities

No. of

requests

dispose d

by

providing

information

No. of

requests

rejected

No. of

application s

pending as on

31.12.12

(Column 6-

(7+8+9)

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT.


Welfare Department,

Secretariat.

11

----------

714

714

245

451

17

1

2. Director of Medical

Education.

20

----------

1845

1845

87

1758

---------

---------------

3. Director Of Medical

And Rural Health

Services.

2

51

852

903

856

39

8

-----------------

4. Director of Medical and

Rural Health Services

(ESI).

13

----------

164

164

17

117

29

1

39

5.

Director of Public Health

Preventive Medicine

43

----------

752

752

57

683

12

-----------------


Welfare

5

----------

60

60

-----------

60

---------

-----------------

7. Tamil Nadu State Health

Transport Department.

3

----------

21

21

-----------

15

1

5

8. Director of Drugs

Control.

17

----------

243

243

32

204

4

3


Medicine and

Homoeopathy

18

----------

155

155

-----------

137

18

----------------

10. Tamil Nadu Medical

Services Corporation

1

----------

77

77

-----------

77

---------

-----------------


Systems Project

1

----------

96

96

10

86

---------

-----------------

12. State Health Society. 1 ---------- 27 27 2 25 --------- ----------------

40

Disposal of First Appeals by the First Appellate Authorities-

S.No. Name Of The Department No. Of

Appellate

Authority

No. of First

Appeals

Pending as

on

31.12.2011

No. of First

Appeals

received

during the

year 2012

Total No. of

First Appeals

(Column 4+5)

No. of First

Appeals Disposed

of by providing

information

No. of First

Appeals

rejected

No. of First

Appeals pending

as on 31.12.12

(Column 6-(7+8)

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT


Welfare Department,

Secretariat.

4

-------------

14

14

14

----------------

----------------------

2. Director of Medical

Education.

72 --------------- 18 18 18 --------------- ---------------


Rural Health Services.

2 --------------- 39 39 39 --------------- ---------------


Rural Health Services

(ESI)

13

---------------

15

15

13

2

---------------

5. Director of Public Health

and Preventive Medicine.

43 --------------- 72 72 72 --------------- ---------------

6. Director of Family 2 --------------- 2 2 2 --------------- ---------------

41

Welfare.

7. Director of Tamil Nadu

State Health Transport.

8 --------------- 1 1 1 --------------- ---------------

8. Director of Drugs

Control.

17 --------------- 22 22 22 --------------- ---------------


Medicine and

Homoeopathy.

18

---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

10. Tamil Nadu Medical

Services Corporation

1 --------------- 5 5 5 --------------- ---------------


Systems Project

1 --------------- 96 96 96 --------------- ---------------

12. State Health Society 1 --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

13. Commissioner of Food

Safety and Drugs

Administration

1

---------------

16

16

16

---------------

---------------


Aids Control Society

1 --------------- 2 2 2 --------------- ---------------


Blindness Control Society

1 --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

Total 185 --------------- 302 302 300 2 ---------------

42

Scenario In Sikkim-

Statement of implementation by Public Authorities /PSUs under Section 25(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005-

S.

No

Name of the

Department

No. of

requests

received

from

Public

Authority

from

(1.1.15 to

31.12.15)

No. of

Request

dispose

from

(1.1.15

to

31.12.15)

No. of

Pending

request

from

(1.1.15

to

31.12.15)

No. of

Complaint

s/2 and

Appeals

filed

before the

SIC from

(1.1.15 to

31.12.15)

Detail of

Penalties

Imposed by

SIC under

S.20(1)

from (1.1.15

to 31.12.15)

Detail of

Disciplinar

y Action

recommend

by SIC

under

S.20(2)

from (1.1.15

to 31.12.15)

Fees

collected

under

Form

‘A’/S.6(1

) from

(1.1.15

to

31.12.15)

Fees

collected

under

S.7(1)

and 7(5)

from

(1.1.15

to

31.12.15)

Any facts

which

indicate an

effort by the

Public

Authority to

administer

and

implement

the sprit and

intention of

this Act from

(1.1.2015 to

31.12.2015)

No. of 1st

appeal

preferred

during

the year

from

(1.1.15 to

31.12.15

No. of

First

Appeal

pending

with First

Appellate

Authority

from

(1.1.15 to

31.12.15)

Recommend

ations for

reform,

including for

the

development

improvemen

t,

modernizatio

n, reform

from (1.1.15

to

31.12.2]15)

1. Health Care

Human

Services &

Family

Welfare

Deptt.

61

61

----------

-------------

--------------

--------------

Rs.610

----------

---------------

38

Nil

---------------

43

2. Water

Security &

Public Health

Deptt.

42

42

----------

-------------

--------------

--------------

Rs.420

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

44

Scenario In Meghalaya12-

Department wise receipt and disposal of Complaints by the Commission during the year 2015-

Here under Health department no. of complaints pending with information commissioner, no. of complaints during the year, no. of complaints

disposed of and acted upon, and no. of complaints disposed and rejected during the year is represented.

S.No. Name Of The

Department

No. Of Complaints

pending with

Information

Commission at the

end of Last Year

No. of Complaints

preferred during the

year

No. of Complaints

disposed and acted

upon

No. of Complaints

Disposed and

Rejected

1. Health -------------------------- 7 7 ------------------------

12.http://megsic.gov.in

45

Disposal of Information Requests by Public Information Officers/Public Authorities Reporting Year: 2015-

In the given below table no. of request pending at the end of the year, no. of request received during the year, total no. of request , no. of request

disposed, no. of request rejected, no. of request refused under sec.7(2) of the said act and % of cases access to information denied of different

health departments-

S.No. Name of

Departments Public

Authorities

No. of

Requests

Pending at

end of last

year

No. of Requests

Received

during the year

Total No. of

Requests

No. of

Requests

Disposed

No. of

Requests

Rejected

No. of Requests

deemed to be

Refused: 7(2)

% of Cases Access

to Information

Denied

Health & F.W

1. Sectt.Deptt.

2. DHS (MI) Nil 35 35 35 Nil Nil Nil

3. DHS (MCH & FW) Nil 16 16 16 Nil Nil Nil

4. DHS (R) Nil 7 7 7 Nil Nil Nil

46

Disposal of First Appeals by the Departmental Appellate Authorities Reporting Year: 2015-

S.No. Name of

Departments

Public

Authorities

No. of First

Appeals

pending with

Appellate

Officers

No. of First

Appeals

preferred

during the

Year

Total No. of

Appeals with

Appellate

Officers

No. of First

Appeals

Disposed

No. of First

Appeals

Rejected

% of First

Appeals

Rejected

No. of First Appeals

pending for more than

45 Days

Health And Family Welfare

1. Sectt.Deptt Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

2. DHS (MI) Nil 16 16 16 Nil Nil Nil

3. DHS (MCH &

FW)

Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

4. DHS (R) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

47

Information Requests rejected by the PIOs/Public authorities: Reporting Year: 2015-

S.No. Name of

Departments

Public

Authorities

Total No. of

Requests

Rejected

No. of

Requests

Rejected

Section 8

No. of Requests

Rejected Section

9

No. of Requests

Rejected Section 11

No. of Requests

Rejected Section 24

No. of Requests Rejected

Other Section

Health & F.W.

1. Sectt.Deptt. Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

2. DHS (MI) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

3. DHS (MCH &

FW)

Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

4. DHS (R) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

48

Summary of Costs, Fees & Charges Collected by Public Authorities: Reporting Year: 2015-

S.No. Name of the

Departments

Public

Authorities

Cost

Collected

Sec.4(4)

Fee Collected

Sec.6(1)

Fee Collected

sec. 7(1)

Fee Collected

Sec.7(5)

Other

charges

Collected

(specify)

Total

Collection

Health & F.W

1. Sectt.Deptt.

2. DHS (MI) 350 1048 Nil Nil Nil 1398

3. DHS (MCH &

FW)

10 30 Nil Nil Nil 40

4. DHS (R) Nil 10 Nil Nil Nil 10

49

Scenario In Punjab13-

Reports received from Departments/ Public Authorities u/s 25 of the RTI Act-

S.

No.

Departme

nt Name

Request

Received

Request

rejected Reasons For Rejection Disciplinary

Action

Taken

Registration

Fee

Addition

al Fee

Total

Pena

lty

Section 8(1) Section

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) 9 11 24 Others

1. Health

And

Family

Welfare

4429 7 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 43929 63597 0

Reports received from Departments/ First Appellate Authorities-

S.No. Department Name Previous

Balance

Total No.

of 1st

Appeals

Instituted

No. Of Appeals Decided

No. Of

Appeals

Pending

No. Of

Appeals

Rejected

No. Of Appeals

Accepted.

Within 30

Days

Within 45

Days

More

Than 45

Days

Total

1. Health & Family

Welfare

2

111

64

31

18

113

0

0

113

13.http://www.infocommpunjab.com

50

HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE –

REPORT UNDER SECTION 25 RECEIVED FROM 26 PUBLIC AUTHORITIES:

S.N. Public

Authority

Name

Request

Received

Request

Rejected

Reasons For Rejection Disciplinary

Action Taken

Registration

Fee

Additional

Fee

Total

Penalty

Section8(1) Section Others

A b c D e f g h i j 9 11 24

1. Director

Health &

Family

Welfare

1263 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 12530 33700 0

2. Director

Homeopathy

38 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 380 1065 0

3. Director

Ayurveda

129 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 1200 1700 0

4. Director

ESI(Sub)

3 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 835 0 0

5 Punjab AIDS

Control

Society

36 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 280 870 0

6. Punjab

Health

System

Corporation

84 0 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 835 3658 0

7. Civil Surgeon

Amritsar

106 - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - 0 1060 0 0

8. Civil Surgeon

Barnala

46 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 460 0 0

9. Civil Surgeon

Bathinda

265 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2657 1019 0

10. Civil Surgeon

Faridkot

116 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 1160 4848 0

11. Civil Surgeon 205 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 2425 1428 0

51

Ferozpur

12. Civil Surgeon

FatehGarh

Sahib

66 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 660 0 0

13. Civil Surgeon

Gurdaspur

70 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 700 4566 0

14. Civil Surgeon

Hoshiarpur

115 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 1150 0 0

15. Civil Surgeon

Jalandhar

323 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 3232 249 0

16. Civil Surgeon

Kapurthala

66 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 660 340 0

17. Civil Surgeon

Ludhiana

477 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 4770 2923 0

18. Civil Surgeon

Mansa

93 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 930 3252 0

19. Civil Surgeon

Moga

84 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 840 512 0

20. Civil Surgeon

Mohali

140 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 980 0 0

21. Civil Surgeon

Mukatsar

142 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 1360 350 0

22. Civil Surgeon

Patiala

103 6 - - 3 - - - - - 2 - - - 1 - 0 1030 879 0

23. Civil Surgeon

Ropar

78 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 900 490 0

24. Civil Surgeon

Sangrur

254 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 0 2540 1080 0

25. Civil Surgeon

SBS Nagar

65 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 540 0 0

26. Civil Surgeon

Tarn Taran

62 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 620 668 0

Total 4429 7 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 43929 63597 0

52

Reports received from Departments/ First Appellate Authorities-

HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE:

S.No. Designation

Of Public

Authority

Designation Of

First Appellate

Authority

Previous

Balance

Total No.

Of 1st

Appellate

Instituted

No. Of Appeals Decided

No. Of

Appeals

Pending

No. of

Appeals

Rejected

No. Of

Appeals

Accepted

Reasons ,If

the Appeals

were not

decided

within time.

Within

30 days

Within

45

Days

Within

45

Days

Total

1. Assistant

Director

Director Health

&Family

Welfare, Punjab

0 82 42 30 10 82 0 0 82

2. Deputy

Director

Director Health

Services (social

Services)

0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

3. Director

PHSC

Managing

Director Punjab

Health System

Corporation

2 13 12 1 2 15 0 0 15

4. Punjab State

Aids

Controller

Society

Project Director

Punjab State

AIDS Controller

Society

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Assistant

Controller

Finance

&account

Director

Homeopathy

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Assistant

Controller

Director

Ayurveda

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

53

Finance &

Account

7. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Amritsar

Civil Surgeon

Amritsar

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Barnala

Civil Surgeon

Barnala

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Bathinda

Civil Surgeon

Bathinda

0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5

10. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Faridkot

Civil Surgeon

Bathinda

0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

11. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Ferozpur

Civil Surgeon

Bathinda

0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2

12. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

FatehGarh

Sahib

Civil Surgeon

Bathinda

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Gurdaspur

Civil Surgeon

Bathinda

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Hoshiarpur

Civil Surgeon

Bathinda

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Jalandhar

Civil Surgeon

Jalandhar

0 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 4

16. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Kapurthala

Civil Surgeon

Bathinda

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Civil Surgeon

Ludhiana

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

54

Ludhiana

18. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Mansa

Civil Surgeon

Mansa

0 0 --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------- -----------

19. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Moga

Civil Surgeon

Moga

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20. Assistant

Civil

Surgeon

Civil Surgeon

Mukatsar

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Mohali

Civil Surgeon

Mohali

0 0 ---------- --------- ---------

20

--------- ----------- ----------- -----------

22. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Patiala

Civil Surgeon

Patiala

0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2

23. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Rupnagar

Civil Surgeon

Rupnagar

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Sangrur

Civil Surgeon

Sangrur

0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

25. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

SBS Nagar

Civil Surgeon

SBS Nagar

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

26. Assistant

Civil Surgeon

Tarn Taran

Civil Surgeon

Tarn Taran

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2 111 64 31 18 113 0 0 113

55

Scenario In Assam14 –

Number of Public Authorities & State Public Information Officers under Health Department-

S.No. Name Of The Department No. Of Public Authorities NO. Of Public Officers

Designated

1. Health & Family Welfare 6 9

Number of RTI application received and disposed by State Public Information Officers under Health Department-

S. No. Name Of The

Department

Requests pending

at the beginning

of the year (01-

04-15)

No. of Requests

received during

the year

Total no. of

Requests

No. of Requests

disposed of

Requests pending

at the end of the

year (31-03-16)

1. Health And

Family Welfare

5 771 771 770 4

14.http://www.sicassam.in

56

Number of Applications rejected-

S.No. Name of the

Department No. of Requests

rejected u/s 8 No. of Requests



rejected u/s 24 Total no. of

Requests rejected

1. Health & Family

Welfare 0 0 0 0 0

Number of First Appeal Petitions received and disposed by First Appellate Authorities-

S.No. Name of the

Department First Appeals

pending with the

FAAs at the

beginning of the

year (01-04-15)

No. of First Appeal

received during

the year

Total no. of First

Appeal s with

Appellate

Authority

No. of Firsts

Disposed by the

First Appellate

Authority

No. of First

Appeals pending

with the FAAs at

the ending of the

year (31-03-15)

1. Health & Family

Welfare 0 52 52 51 1

57

Scenario In Mizoram15-

YEAR - 2015 – 2016. Implementation of the provision of Section 4 of RTI Act 2005:

S.No. Name of Public

Authority Section 4 (1) (a) Section 4 (1) (b) Section 4 (2) Section 4 (3) Section 4 (4)

1. Dte. of Health

Services Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

YEAR – 2015 – 2016. Implementation of the provision of Section 5 of RTI Act 2005-

S.No. Name of Public Authority No. Of SPIO’s No. Of SAPIO’s No. Of DAA’s Whether any assistance of any officer has

been sought by SPIO? If So in How Many

Cases?

1. Dte. of Health Services 1 1 1 Nil

YEAR - 2015 – 2016. Implementation of the provision of Section 6 of RTI Act 2005- o

S.No.

Name Of Authority No. Of Applications

received

No. Of Applications Assisted By SPIO To

Reduce An Application In Writing Under

Section 6(1)(b)

No. Of Applications Referred To

Another PA/Office For Providing

Information.

1. Dte. of Health Services 65 Nil Nil

15.https://mic.mizoram.gov.in

58

YEAR - 2015 – 2016. Implementation of the provision of Section 7 of RTI Act 2005-

S.No. Name Of

the

Authority

Application

Disposed

Within

Prescribed time

limit

Nos. Of

Application

Rejected

Nos. Of Application

Received

concerning Life and

Liberty

No. of

Application

Falling To

Make

Payment

Nos. Of

B.P.L

Application

Nos. Of

Sensorial

Disabled

applicant

Application

Involving

Third Party.

1. Dte. of

Health

Services

65 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

YEAR - 2015 – 2016. Implementation of the provision of Section 8 & 9 of RTI Act 2005-

S.No. Name Of Public Authority Section 8 Section 9

Nos. Of Application Denied

information under section 8

Nos. Of Application given

information under section 8 on the

ground of larger public interest

Nos. of applications

Rejected on the ground

specified under section 9

1. Dte. of Health Services Nil Nil Nil

59

YEAR - 2015 – 2016. Implementation of the provision of Section 19 of RTI Act 2005-

Under this table no. of appeals that have been instituted before the DAA, No. of 1st appeal decided by DAA within 45 days, NO. Of 1st Appeal

rejected, No. of appeals allowed, No. of 2nd appeal preferred against 1st appellate authority, No. of 2nd appeals decided by MIC,

recommendations made by the commission and actions taken;

S.No. Name Of

The

Public

Authority

How many

appeals have

been instituted

before the

DAA against

action/in-

action of SPIO

Nos. Of 1st

appeal

decided by

DAA within

the period of

45 days

from the

date of

filling the 1st

Appeal

Nos. of

1st

appeal

rejected

Nos. of

1st

appeal

allowed

Nos. of 2nd

appeal

preferred

against 1st

Appellate

Authority

Before

MIC

Nos. of 2nd

Appeals

decided by

MIC

No. Of

Appeals

admitted

by MIC

In how many cases

the Commission

made

recommendation

and action taken

thereof

1. Dte. of

Health

Services

Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

60

Scenario In Tripura16-

Disposal of request for information by the SPIOs during the period under report:

Status of disposal of the requests for information by the State Public Information Officers based on the Annual

Reports furnished (2013-14)-

S.No. Name Of The

Department

No. of Requests

received during the

year

No. of Requests

Disposed

No. of request

rejected

No. of Requests

allowed

No. Of Requests

pending at the

end of the year

1. Directorate of Health

Services

237 236 Nil 298 Nil

Classification of Information sought by the petitioners Information Seekers-

S.No. Name Of

The

Department

Service

Related

information

Project

Related

Information

Govt.

Scheme

related

information

Govt. Policy

related

Information

Examination

related

Information

On

Delivery Of

Services By

Govt.

Department

Land

Related

Issues

Recruitment

related

Information

Any

Others

1. Directorate

of health

Service

48 9 9 105 17 Nil Nil 26 23

16.http://rtitripura.nic.in

61

Status of Applications Received under The RTI Act From 2006-07 to 2013-14 By Directorate Of Family Welfare-

Year Petitions

Requesting For

Information

Received

Petition Allowed Petitions Rejected Petitions Requesting For

Information Settled & Information

Provided

Petitions Pending

2006-07 36 36 0 36 0

2007-08 27 25 2 25 0

2008-09 116 116 0 116 0

2009-10 9 9 0 9 0

2010-11 37 37 0 37 0

2011-12 230 230 0 230 0

2012-13 240 240 0 240 0

2013-14 112 107 3 107 2

Applications Disposed Under The Act From Health Department Having Large Public Interface Since 2006-2014-

Year Health

2006-07 36

2007-08 25

2008-09 116

2009-10 9

2010-11 37

2011-12 230

2012-13 240

2013-14 107

62

Status of Applications Received Under The Act From Heath And Family Welfare Having Large Public Interface

And Their Status Of Disposal During 2013-14-

Name Of The Department Request For Information Information Provided Request Pending

Health and Family Welfare 112 107 5

The Commission finds that out of 112 requests for information, Department of Health and Family Welfare hd 5

requests pending during the period.

Status of Fees Collected Under Section 6(1) and Section 7(1) Under The Act-

S.No. Name Of The Department Fees Collected Section 6(1) Fees Collected Section 7(1)

1. Directorate Of Health Services 2130 8394

63

Scenario In Haryana17-

REGISTER OF REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION & DISPOSAL OF REQUESTS UNDER RTI ACT, 2005

S.No. Name Of

The Public

Authority

No. Of

request

received

No. of

request

rejected

Particulars of any

disciplinary action

taken against any

official on account

of Violation Of

RTI Act.

Amount Of Charges Collected Recommendations, if any,

received for the

development/improvement/mode

rnization/reform or amendment

to this Act or other Legislation or

common law or any other matter

relevant to RTI Act and action

taken Thereon.

(a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b)

u/s

8

u/s9 On the

recommendations of

the Commissions

Other

Wise

Application

Charges u/s

6(1)

Documentation

Charges u/s 7(3)

1. Health

Services

(Director)

2033 5 0 0 0 51490 28508

2. Engineer in

Chief, Public

Health

Department,

Panchkula

1791 35360 3643

3. Public Health

Engineering

---------

---

---- --------------------- -------- ------------ --------------------- ------------------------------

4. Health

Department

166 4450 5110

17.http://cicharyana.gov.in

64

Annual report Of Central Information Commission18-

Summary of returns by the Public Authorities in Health Department-

S.No. Ministry/Independent Department Total No. Of Pa’s No. Of Pa’s who filed

Annual Return

Percentage Compliance

1. Ministry Of Health and Family Welfare 135 111 82%

RTI application and their rejections in top 20 (as per RTI request) Ministries / Departments-

S.No. Ministry/Independent Department No. Of Request Received No. Of Requests Rejected

1. Ministry Of Health and Family Welfare 22350 373

Number of RTI request, First Appeal and Second Appeal/Complaints received in top 20 (as per RTI request)

Ministries/Departments-

S.No. Ministry/Independent

Department

No. Of Requests

Received

No. Of First

Appeal Received

% Of RTI Request

Converted Into

First Appeal

No. Of Second

Appeals/

Complaints

Received

% Of RTI Converted

into second

Appeal/Complaints

1. Ministry Of Labour &

Employment

22350 2537 11% 492 2%

18.http://cic.gov.in/reports/37

65

Status Report on the Submission of RTI Annual Return-

S.No. Ministry/Independent Department Total No. of PAs No. of PAs for whom

Annual Return is filed

No. of PAs for whom Annual

Return is not filed

1. Ministry Of Health And Family welfare 135 111 24

Ministry-wise List of Public Authorities who have not submitted Annual Return-

S.No. Ministry/Department Pa’s who have not submitted Annual report

Ministry Of Health And family Welfare

Department Of Health & Family Welfare

1. AIRPORT HEALTH ORGANISATION,TIRUCHIRAPALLI

2. ASSTT. Drugs Controller(I),Chennai

3. Central Council of Homeopathy

4. Central Council For Research in Ayurveda And Siddha

5. Central Council For Research in Homeopathy

6. Central Council For Research In Yoga And Naturopathy

7. Central Council For Research In Unani Medicine

8. Central Council Of Indian Medicine

9. Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata

10. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, Ghaziabad.

11. Food Research And Standardization Laboratory, Ghaziabad

12. Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd.

13. Morarji Desai Institute Of Yoga.

14. National Institute of Ayurveda

15. National Institute Of Homeopathy

16. National Institute Of Naturopathy

66

17. National Institute Of Unani Medicine

18. PORT HEALTH ORGANISATION SHEVA NAVI,MUMBAI

19. PORT HEALTH ORGANISATION, MARMAGOA

20. PORT HEALTH ORGANISATION,CHENNAI

21. Rashtriya Ayurveda Vidyapeeth

22. REGIONAL DRUG TESTING LABORATORY,GUWAHATI

23. Regional Drug Testing Lab

24. Regional Office For Health and Family Welfare

Ministry Of Mines

National Institute Of Miners Health

UT Delhi

1.

Office of the Minister of Home, Health, Power, PWD, Industries

and Transport

.

Ministry-wise List of Public Authorities who have submitted Annual Return-

Department Of Agriculture And Cooperation

1. National Institute of Plant Health Management

Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare

Department Of AIDS Control

Department Of AIDS Control

Department Of Ayush

1. Central Council For Homoeopathy

2. Central Council For Research In Ayurvedic Science(CCRAS)

3. Central Council For Research In Homoeopathy(CCRH)

4. Central Council For Research In Siddha

5. Central Council For Research In Unani Medicine(CCRUM)

6. Central Council For Research In Yoga Naturopathy

7. Central Council Of Indian Medicine

8. Department Of Ayush

9. Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory

67

10. IMPCL

11. Morarji Desai National Institute Of Yoga

12. National Institute Of Ayurveda (NIA)

13. National Institute Of Homeopathy

14. National Institute Of Naturopathy

15. National Institute Of Siddha

16. National Institute Of Unani Medicine(NIUM)

17. National Medicinal Plants Board

18. Pharmacopoeial Laboratory For Indian Medicine

19. Rashtriya Ayurved Vidhya Peeth

Department Of Health & Family Welfare

1. AIRPORT BORDER QUARANTINE,AMRITSAR

2. AIRPORT HEALTH ORGANISATION,DELHI

3. AIRPORT HEALTH ORGANISATION,KOLKATA

4. AIRPORT HEALTH ORGANISATION,MUMBAI

5. AIRPORT HEALTH ORGANISATION,CHENNAI

6. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF HYGINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH KOLKATA

7. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences

8. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND

REHABLITATION, MUMBAI

9. ASSTT. DRUGS CONTROLLER,AHMEDABAD

10. ASSTT DRUGS CONTROLLER,KOLKATTA

11. ASSTT. DRUGS CONTROLLER,MUMBAI

12. ASSTT. DRUGS CONTROLLER,DELHI

13. ASSTT. DRUGS CONTROLLER, NHAVA,MUMBAI

14. B.C.G.VACCINE LABORATORY,CHENNAI

15. CENTRAL DRUG STANDARD CONTROL ORGANISATION,DRUGS

INSPECTORS,TRAINING SCHEME,MUMBAI

16. CENTRAL DRUG STANDARD CONTROL ORGANISATION,KOLKATA

17. CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANISATION,CHENNAI

18. CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANISATION WEST ZONE

MUMBAI

19. CENTRAL DRUGS ORGANISATION,COCHIN

20. CENTRAL DRUGS TESTING LABORATORY,CHENNAI

68

21. CENGRAL DRUGS TESTING LABORATORY , THANE,MUMBAI

22. Department Of Health And Family Welfare

23. Directorate Of General Of Health Services

24. National Institute Of Health d and Family Welfare

25. National Institute Of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences(NIMHANS)

26. North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute Of Health And Medical Sciences

27. PORT HEALTH ORGANISATION,COCHIN

28. PORT HEALTH ORGANISATION,KANDLA

29. PORT HEALTH ORGANISATION, KOLKATA

30. PORT HEALTH ORGANISATION,MUMBAI

31. PORT HEALTH ORGANISATION,MANDAPAM CAMP

32. PORT HEALTH ORGANISATION VISHAKHAPATNAM

33. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,KOLKATA

34. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,PATNA

35. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY

WELFARE,THIRUVANTHAPURAM

36. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,BANGALORE

37. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,SHILLONG

38. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,BHOPAL

39. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY

WELFARE,BHUBENESWAR

40. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,CHANDIGARH

41. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,CHENNAI

42. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,HYDERABAD

43. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,JAIPUR

44. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,LUCKNOW

45. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,PUNE

46. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,SHIMLA

47. REGIONAL OFFICE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,SRINAGAR

69

Ministry/Department/Organisation

National Institute Of Plant Health Management

S.No. 0

1. Opening balance Requests Received under RTI(as on 1st April 2015) 0

2. No. Of Requests Received During Year 0

3. Total No. Of Requests 0

4. No. Of Requests Transferred to other Pa’s 0

5. Total No. Of Appeal Received 0

6. Total No. Of Appeal Disposed 0(0%)

7. Decisions where applications for Information Rejected 0

8. Number of cases where disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of administration of RTI Act 20

9. Total Amount Collected (fee+addl. Charges+penalty)(Rs.) 0

10. No. Of CAPIO appointed (A) 0

11. No. Of CAPIO appointed (B) 0

12. No. Of AAs appointed (C) 0

13. Total A+B+C 0

14. No.

Of

Times

Various

Provisions

Were

invoked

While

rejecting

requests

Relevant

Section

Of RTI

Act 2015

Section

8(1)

(a) 0

15. (b) 0

16. (c) 0

17. (d) 0

18. (e) 0

19. (f) 0

20. (i) 0

21. (j) 0

22. Other

Sections

9 0

23. 11 0

24. 24 0

25. Others 0

Total

0

70

Department/Ministry/Organisation

Department Of Health And Family Welfare

S.No.

1. Opening Balance of Request Received under RTI(as on 1st April 2015) 0

2. No. of Request Received during Year 6091

3. Total No. Of Request 6091

4. No. of Requests transferred to other PA’s 898

5. Total No. of Appeal Received 578

6. Total No. Of Appeal Disposed 578

7. Decisions where Applications for Information rejected 0(0%)

8. Number of cases where disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect to

administration of RTI Act

0

9. Total amount collected (fee+addl.charges+penalty)(Rs.) 63469

10. No. CAPIOs appointed (A) 0

11. No. CPIOs appointed (B) 55

12. No. AAs appointed (C) 26

13. No. of

Times

Various

provisions

Were

invoked

While

Rejecting

Requests

Relevant

Sections

Of RTI

ACT

2005

Section

8(1)

(a) 81

14. (b) 0

15. (c) 0

16. (d) 0

17. (e) 0

18. (f) 0

19. (g) 0

20. (h) 0

21. (i) 0

22. (j) 0

23. Other

Sections

9 0

24. 11 0

25. 24 0

26. Others 0

0

71

Conclusion-

Summarily, any information [here, related to Health, MLC and Medical case] desired by an applicant making request to

“State Public Information Officer” or “Central Public Information Officer” and in turn to be disseminated by a RMP in

medical case or in medico legal case shall be entertained in the light of above among other provisions of the Act. The

provision the of the Act are general and not specifically expressed for health and medical profession and hence subject to

interpretation by legal authorities in case of contested interpretation as the case may be. In developed countries like USA,

there is a separate chapter on “Confidentiality of Medical Information Act” in California Civil Code Section 56-56.16,

having categorical emphasis on physician-patient relationship and confidentiality of medical information. It is the right

time that Forensic fraternity shall gear up themselves to frame and suggest a uniform guideline in accordance with the

present provision of the Act or even suggest unequivocal amendments in the Act referring to medical information. The

Study takes the advantage of Right to Information Act, 2005 in the field of Medical Ethics in providing proper Health care

to the patients. Doctors should not only know about the medical knowledge, Medical Ethics is also important. The most

prestigious medical institute of the country should abide by all the rules & regulation laid down in Indian Medical Council

Act, Furthermore, it is very important to follow the Medical Ethics which is first & foremost before treating a patient.

72

Suggestions-

The significant achievements of our country that make us proud could be education, information technology, nuclear tests,

satellite. But the implementation of Right to Information Act is the most important achievement of independent India

because all the other achievements as said above can be fully enjoyed if we have freedom to information. In pre independent

arena the Britishers sucked the blood of Indians. In the post independence arena the politicians and the bureaucrats have

encroached our freedom. Earlier Indians were ruled by the Britishers and now by its politicians. In real terms with Right to

Information, we have got freedom. Right to Information Act is a befitting reply to such bureaucrats of our community.

Successful implementation of Right to Information Act would give Indians the freedom in true sense of the term.

Some of the suggestions are-

1. The provision the of the Act are general and not specifically expressed for health and medical profession and hence

subject to interpretation by legal authorities in case of contested interpretation as the case may be.

2. The annual reports that were uploaded by the all State Information Commissions are not properly updated and some

of them didn’t upload it. So due to this it results into lack in comparative analysis of the States.

3. Awareness and consciousness among the people are the pre-requisites of the success of this Act. How far the base

level administration will be corruption free and will be able to maintain transparency that depends on the complete

awareness among the people. It is therefore suggested to the people to achieve a desired level of awareness for

effective implementation of Right to Information Act.

73

4. There are many exemptions to the Act like the class exemptions, prejudice based exemptions and time limited

exemptions. These exemptions prevent the information from being received by the seeker. The exceptions should be

minimized so that there is more transparency.

5. Penalties for delays in providing what has been sought under the law are imposed in very rare cases. There must be

stringent penalty and effective prosecution system for violating the mandatory provision.

74

References-

ANNUAL Reports –

1. Annual report of Jammu and Kashmir State Information Commission

2. Annual Report of Himachal Pradesh State information Commission

3. Annual report Of Karnataka State Information Commission

4. Annual report Of Meghalaya State Information Commission

5. Annual report Of Arunachal Pradesh State Information Commission

6. Annual Report Of Assam State Information Commission

7. Annual Report Of Mizoram state Information Commission

8. Annual Report Of Haryana State information Commission

9. Annual Report Of Gujarat State Information Commission

10. Annual Report Of Punjab State Information Commission

11. Annual Report Of Sikkim State Information Commission

12. Annual Report Of Tamil Nadu State Information Commission

13. Annual Report Of Tripura State Information Commission

14. Annual Report Of Central Information Commission

75

Cases-

1. Gajendhiran vs. State by Inspector of Police on 20 March, 2015

2. Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik vs. State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 23 March, 2007

3. Shri Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. & Ors vs. Union Of India & Ors on 20 March, 1997

4. State Of U.P vs. Raj Narain & Ors on 24 January, 1975

5. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) V. RESPONDENT: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND

ANOTHER; WITH PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES (PUCL) AND ANOTHER V. UNION

OF INDIA (UOI) AND ANOTHER.

role of right to information in health

Documents