The Central Information Commission (CIC) has taken a serious note of Southern Railway not providing information sought by a widow on the status of the medical reimbursement claim of her husband.
Through a show-cause notice, the CIC asked the Chief Medical Director to explain why action under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act should not be initiated against him for not responding to the application filed under the Act.
On November 6, 2019, N.K. Rugmini filed a petition for details of the reimbursement claim of her husband K.R. Krishnan who served as catering supervisor and died before getting the benefit. Being the wife and legal heir, she applied for the benefit several times but did not receive any information or amount, she argued.
Records not available
Southern Railway’s Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) replied that the information was more than 11 years old and reimbursement claims were preserved only for five years according to the guidelines. Southern Railway further said there were no records available to verify whether the claim had been sanctioned or nor. Not satisfied with the reply, the petitioner moved the CIC. Central Information Commissioner Uday Mahurkar noted that the respondent (the CPIO) remained absent during the hearing despite notice. He said the appellant’s advocate had represented that false and misleading information was provided by the CPIO.
“Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission notes that the appellant is seeking information pertaining to the medical reimbursement of her deceased husband, which is perfectly justifiable. According to the appellant, the CPIO had denied the information on the grounds that information relating to medical reimbursement claims are preserved only for a period of five years as per the policy of the department. Since the respondent was not present in the hearing, the reasons for the same could not be ascertained,” the order said.
The CIC said the appellant was the widow and legal heir of the deceased and hence the issue of her not getting the due amount accruing to her late husband assumed a “serious dimension”.
