CENTRALINFORMATIONCOMMISSION

(RoomNo.315,BWing,AugustKrantiBhawan,BhikajiCamaPlace,NewDelhi110066)

FileNo.CIC/SA/A/2014/000072

Appellant
Respondent

:
:

ShriSatbirSingh

RaoTulaRamMemorialHospital

GNCTD,Delhi
Dateofhearing

07112014

Dateofdecision

25112014

InformationCommissioner :

Prof.M.SridharAcharyulu
(MadabhushiSridhar)

ReferredSections

Sections3,19(3)oftheRTI

Act
Result

Appealallowed/
Disposedof

Theappellantispresent.ThePublicAuthorityisrepresentedbyDr.Sangeeta
Basu,Mr.C.R.Yadav,APIO,RaoTulaRamMemorialHospital,GNCTD,Delhi.

FACTS:
2. TheappellantMrSatbirSinghisfatherofAnilKumar,ayoungmanwhodiedinana
motorvehicleaccidenton13.7.2013,wheretwomotorvehiclescollidedinDelhi.MrNaveen,
MrVikas,MrMonuwerealsoinjuredinthisaccident.AppellantsoughtvideRTIapplicationdt
31.8.2013copyofMLCdt13.7.2013inrespectofVikas,Monu,NavinandAnilKumar;No.of
VansattachedwiththeHospitalandhowmanyAmbulanceswereinhospitalpremiseson

CIC/SA/A/2014/000072

Page1

13.7.2013;copyofregistrationslipofthesepeopleandtheirmedicaltreatmentrecords.The
PIODrSangeethaBasuhaspromptlywrittentoMrNaveenMrVikasandMrMonuseeking
permissiontogiveinformationsoughtbyappellantaboutMLCreportetcregardingthose
persons.MrNaveenwrotebacksayinghehadnoobjectioningivingMLCandotherpapers.
ThephotocopiesofMLCofNavinandAnil,sonofappellantweregivenon7.10.2013.The
CPIOvidereplydt23.8.2013claimedtheexemptionofsection8(1)(j)onpoint1and3saying
shedidnotreceiveanycommunicationfromVikasandMonu.BeingaggrievedbytheCPIO
reply,theappellantmadeFirstappealon12.10.2013.FAAvideorderdt9.11.2013heldthat
theMLCreportcannotbeprovidedbutdirecttheCPIOtoprovideotherinformationlikeMLC
no.policestationetc.OnnoncomplianceoftheFAAorderwithintheprescribedtimeandfor
completeinformation,theappellantmadeSecondAppealbeforetheCommission.

Decision

3.Boththepartiesmadetheirsubmissions.Therespondent/PIOsubmittedthattheyhad
alreadyprovidedMLCreportsintwocasesnamely,AnilandVikas. Thereportsinother
casesarenot provided,asthe thirdparty has notrepliedanything to their letter. They,
therefore,submittedthatintheabsenceofdefiniteresponsefromthethirdparty,theyarenot
able to take any decision to provide the information. Moreover, these cases are under
investigationbytheSHO,JaffarpurPS.
4. WhethertheinformationsoughtistheMedicoLegalCasereport? Isitapublic
documentordeemedtobeconfidential&personal?Whetheraccusedhasrighttothat
informationeitherunderRTIorunderanyotherlaw?TheMedicoLegalCase(MLC)is
definedasanycaseofinjuryorailmentwhere,theattendingdoctorafterhistorytaking
andclinicalexamination,considersthatinvestigationsbylawenforcementagencies(and

CIC/SA/A/2014/000072

Page2

also superior military authorities) are warranted to ascertain circumstances and fix
responsibilityregardingthesaidinjuryorailmentaccordingtothelaw.
5. MedicoLegalreportsarepreparedbythehospitalontheinstructionofthePolice
authorities. The reports are used by the police to establish guilt during prosecution.
Medico legal cases include certificates of Physical Examination of any person, by a
SpecialistMedicalOfficerorTeamofSpecialistMedicalOfficers,onthewrittenrequisition
fromaJudicialorPoliceOfficer.
6.TherulelaiddowninAbdulHalimKhanv.SaadatAliKhan,AIR1928Oudh155,was
that"whenaCivilSurgeonreportstoaMagistrateheismerelygivinghisexpertopinionand
isnotmakingarecordofhis'act'inofficialcapacityfortheuseofthepublic.Itisonlyhisact
ofmakingarecordinsuchacapacitythatwouldbeconsideredtobean'act'withinthe
meaningofS.74."JudgesinthatcaseexplainedthattheopinionoftheMedicalOfficer
containedinthepostmortemreportwasonlytoaidtheInvestigatingOfficerininvestigation.
ThereportcannotbeheldtobearecordofMedicalOfficerofhisofficial"act"fortheuseof
thepublic.Itiswellsettledthatthepostmortemreportoraninjuryreportisnotsubstantive
evidence.Ithastobeprovedbythemakerofit.Itcannot,therefore,betermedasapublic
documentasenvisagedunderS.74oftheEvidenceAct.ThiswasacceptedbyDelhiHigh
Court in State vs Gian Singh decided on 13 October, 1980, by A B Rohatgi, Chiranjit
Talwar,JJ.(http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1940919).ThisBenchheld:Asarule,thepost
mortemreportisboundtocontaintheopinionoftheMedicalOfficer.Heistoopinewhether
theinjurieswerepostmortemorantemortem;heistostatetheapproximatetimeofdeath.
Invariablyhemustmentionthekindofweaponwhichwasusedincausingtheinjuries.
7. ThisCommissionhasorderedinfileNo.CIC/AD/A/2013/000778SAdated13/6/2014
sayingeverymedicolegalreportisnotapublicdocument.Especiallywhenrelatedto
prosecutionofcriminalcharges,thedisclosureofthosedocumentsdependuponseveral

CIC/SA/A/2014/000072

Page3

legalprovisions.Thesemedicolegalcaserecordsarenotpreparedattheinstanceofthe
accusedorpatient,butweremadeforthelegalrequirementsofcriminaljusticesystem.
8. In UnionofIndiathroughDirector,MinistryofPersonnel,PG&Pensionv.
CentralInformationcommissioner,theDelhiHighCourtheldinWritPetitions8396/2009,
16907/2006, 4788/2008,9914/2009,6085/2008,7304/2007,7930/2009and3607of2007
on30thNovember,2009underparagraph87:FIRandpostmortemreportsareinformation
as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as they are material in form of record,
documents or reports which are held by the public authority. If disclosure of such
informationimpedestheinvestigationorapprehensionofoffenderorprosecutionofoffender,
itcanbedenied,asheldbytheDelhiHighCourtintheabovereferredcase. Thesaid
Sectiondoesnotprovideblanketexemption,evenifitispartialinnatureandisjustified.
DelhiHighCourtexplainedthatthereshallbenodisclosureofpostmortemreportswhen
investigationisinprogress.ThusMLCreportscanbesharedwhenthatwouldnotimpede
theprocessofinvestigationorprosecution.

9.OneoptionbeforetheCommissionisremandingcasebacktoCPIOforfulfillingSection
11requirementofseekingobjectionsfromtwoinjuredpersonsandgivingsecondandthird
noticestothembesidesgivingthemopportunitytogoinforfirstandsecondappeals.This
shouldhavebeenconsideredattheFirstAppellateAuthoritylevel.Unfortunately,thefirst
appellateauthorityDr.VijayRai,didnotapplymindandconcludedon9.11.2013thatthe
information sought could not be provided. As more than one year was lapsed, and the
processwouldtakelongtimeforcompletion,whichmightcauseseriousinjurytothepublic
interestinpursuingtheactionincriminalcaseandcompensationcaseofthedeceasedson
oftheappellant,theCommissionthinksthatremandingcasebacktoCPIO,whodidnot
performherdutycompletelyunderSection11,wouldservenopurposeanddefeattheends
ofjusticeforwhichtheappellantisfighting.

CIC/SA/A/2014/000072

Page4

10.Thiscasebeingamotorvehicleaccidentwhereinthesonofappellantdied,andthe
actionsareunderwaytosecurecompensationandadjudicationonallegationsofnegligence,
theMLCandrelatedrecordwouldbehighlyrelevanttotheappellantfatherofthedeceased
son.ThedenialofMLCandothermedicalrecordoftwopersonsinjuredinthesameaccident
whoweredrivingmotorvehiclewhichcollidedwiththeother,wouldbeimproperandnot
providedbytheRTIAct.WhetherSection8(1)(j)exemptionwillapplytothisdemandfor
informationaboutMLCofanotherperson,whichisregardedaspersonalinformation,need
tobeexamined.

11. The letters dated 3.9.2013 from to three injured persons seeking their
objection/permission to provide MLC and other medico legal record pertaining to them,
containedaclauseincase,youfailtosubmityourreplyinthisregardwithinstipulatedtime,
itwillbepresumedthatyouhavenoobjectiontoprovidetheinformationtotheapplicant.
Thetimegivenforreplywassevendaysfromthedateofissueoftheletter. Noresponse
receivedbythedateofhearingi.e.,7.11.2014.TheCPIOfurnishedtheinformationabouttwo
injured persons but withheld the MLC papers about other two. The CPIO should have
presumedthatthosetwohavenoobjection,andshouldhaveconsideredwhetherinformation
sought could be given and issued notice of her decision to disclose the information, as
prescribedunderSection11(2)toSection11(4),presumingthattheyhadnoobjectionas
indicatedbyabsenceofresponse.MrNavininhisletterofnoobjection,allegedthathe
sufferedinjuriesbecauseofnegligentdrivingofMr.AnilKumar,sonoftheappellant.Since
Mr Anil Kumar is the deceased, the criminal case against him cannot continue. As the
negligenceorotherwiseofotherusersofvehicleisnotknown,theinvestigatingofficermight
havedecidedtoinvestigateandprosecutethecase.Inanyeventuality,theMLCreportsand
other records assume importance in establishing negligence or otherwise, which will be

CIC/SA/A/2014/000072

Page5

usefulforclaiminginsurancemoneybytheinjuredpersonsanddeceasedperson.Inthis
casealltheinjuredpersonsareinvolvedinsameaccident,theycouldbeaccusedandtheir
negligenceorinnocenceneedtobeestablishedinthecourtoflaw.Hence,MLCandrelated
information,cannotbetreatedasthirdpartyinformationorpersonalinformation.Thereis
publicinterestingivingsuchinformationtotheappellant,whoisthefatherofthedeceased,
forwhateverworthitisforhim,intheinterestsofcriminaljustice.

12.TheCommission,therefore,directstherespondentauthoritytowritetotheconcerned
InvestigationOfficer/SHO,Jaffarpurandseekthecurrentstatusofthemedicolegalcaseand
objections,ifany,againstfurnishingtheinformation,withfullreasoningandjustificationfor
thoseobjections.Ifthedisclosureofthisinformationtotheappellant,impedesinvestigation
inanymanner,onlythentheinformationcanbewithheld.IftheInvestigationOfficerhasno
objectionordoesnotrespondwithintendaysfromthedateofCPIOslettertohim,andifthe
PIO/Departmentisreadytoprovidetheinformationtotheappellant,thentherespondent
authorityshallfurnishthedesiredinformationtotheappellantaftertheexpiryof10days,from
thedateofwritingtotheinvestigationofficer.Theentireprocessshouldbecompletedwithin
onemonthfromthedateofreceiptofthisorder.Theappealisdisposedof.

(M.SridharAcharyulu)
InformationCommissioner
Authenticatedtruecopy

(BabuLal)
DeputyRegistrar

CIC/SA/A/2014/000072

Page6

Addressoftheparties:
1. TheCPIOunderRTI,Govt.ofNCTofDelhi
RaoTulaRamMemorialHospital,O/oMedical
Superintendent,Jaffarpur,NewDelhi
2. ShriSatbirSingh
Village:JhulJhuliNearMalkhanHouse,
TVTower,POGhumanHera,NewDelhi110073

CIC/SA/A/2014/000072

Page7