The Hindu (Erode)

Health Dept. told to disclose action taken over irregulari­ties in organ transplant­s

- S. Vijay Kumar

The Tamil Nadu Informatio­n Commission has directed the State Health Department to provide details of the action taken over allegation­s of serious irregulari­ties in the organ transplant programme in the State during 201720.

The case arises out of a petition filed by S. Loganathan of Tiruvannam­alai, who sought to know under the Right to Informatio­n Act, 2005, the details of the action taken over violations of the Transplant­ation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. He wanted to know whether any inquiry was ordered by the then Health Secretary against the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services and, if not, the copies of files relating to the initiation of such an inquiry.

Informatio­n denied

Not satisfied with the reply of the Public Informatio­n Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA), who denied the informatio­n sought, the petitioner moved an appeal before the TNIC.

After hearing both sides, State Informatio­n Commission­er P. Thamarai Kannan said that the replies of the PIO and the

FAA were not acceptable.

Passing orders in the case, Mr. Kannan directed the PIO to furnish informatio­n to the petitioner on whether the then Health Secretary had ordered or contemplat­ed any inquiry against the then Director of Medical and Rural Health Services in connection with the violations of the THOTA Act.

Copies of reports

The PIO was told to disclose when the then Health Secretary ordered an inquiry into the irregulari­ties alleged in the organ scam in 201720, and provide copies of the interim and final reports submitted by the inquiry officer.

The State Informatio­n Commission­er also directed the authoritie­s to reveal whether any case was filed by the State government in any court in relation to the issue, and provide details of the action taken on the basis on the report of the inquiry officer.

If the PIO was of the opinion that the informatio­n sought by the petitioner could not be shared, he was told to explain the provisions of the RTI Act under which such an exemption could be applied.

In case no inquiry was ordered by the then Health Secretary against the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services or in connection with the irregulari­ties under the THOTA Act in 201720, the PIO was asked to file a sworn affidavit to that effect and send a copy to the petitioner.

The petitioner sought to know whether any inquiry was ordered by the then Health Secretary against the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services

 ?? ?? Cracking the whip: The State Informatio­n Commission­er said the replies of the Public Informatio­n Officer and the First Appellate Authority were not acceptable.
Cracking the whip: The State Informatio­n Commission­er said the replies of the Public Informatio­n Officer and the First Appellate Authority were not acceptable.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India