Uttam Chand Meena vs National Medical Commission

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J

The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

Petitioner impugns order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the Central Information Commission whereby the Commission has held that the requisite

information has already been provided to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information provided does not still satisfy the petitioner in as much as the Gazette notification

does not show the name of the institute from which the concerned doctor has obtained her qualifications.

Petitioner had by the subject application sought an information as to whether Moscow Medical Institute named after N.A. Semoshko, Moscow

(USSR) is approved by the MCI or not.

The MCI has given a response to the application that as per Part-II of Third Schedule of the IMC Act, the name of Moscow Medical Institute (old

name) and The Sechenov First Moscow Medical Institute, USSR (new name) is included in the said Schedule.

The contention of the petitioner is that the subject institute is not the Moscow Medical Institute named after N.A. Semashko, Moscow (USSR).

Learned counsel has sought to contend that the “Moscow Medical Institute (old name) and The Sechenov First Moscow Medical Institute,

USSR (new name)â€​ is not the “Moscow Medical Institute named after N.A.Semashkoâ€​. He submits that the two institutes are different.

The specific query was whether Moscow Medical Institute named after N.A. Semashko, Moscow is included in the schedule or not, to which the

response is that Moscow Medical Institute (old name) and The Sechenov First Moscow Medical Institute is included in the said Schedule. A copy of

the entire third schedule including the names of all the recognised medical qualifications granted by Medical Institutes has been annexed by the

Petitioner as Annexure P â€" 10. Annexure P â€" 10 is a copy that appears to have been downloaded from the website of the Medical Council of

India.

The contention of the petitioner that “Moscow Medical Institute (old name) and The Sechenov First Moscow Medical Institute, USSR (new

name)†is not the “Moscow Medical Institute named after N.A.Semashko and that the Institute named after N.A. Semashko is Moscow Medical

Stomatological Institute, Moscow and that the certificate of the concerned doctor does not give the complete name of the Institute cannot be subject

matter of a query under the Right to Information Act.

Respondent has duly answered the query raised and provided the information. The information is also otherwise available in public domain and

petitioner has accessed the same and even annexed a copy of the entire schedule as available on the website of the Medical Council of India in this

petition.

In case petitioner has a grievance about the name of the Institute or the education qualifications of the concerned doctor, petitioner would have to

raise an appropriate grievance before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

This Court in an application under Right to Information Act would not go into the merits of the information. This Court is only to examine whether

the query has been duly responded to or not.

As noticed above, the query has been duly responded to by the concerned authority and the information sought is also otherwise available in public

domain and petitioner has accessed the same and even annexed a copy thereof with this petition.

There is no infirmity in the impugned order of the Central Information Commission. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. All rights and

contentions of the parties are reserved.

Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.