By an application of 17.8.06 Shri Arjesh Kumar Madhok of Nandanpur, Jhansi made an application to made an application to Centre for D.N.A. Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Hyderabad seeking the following information: Whether any sort of DNA test has been done in respect of my 5 year old son Aditya (Who is living in my wifes custody sine past about 1 year) at the CDFD, Hyderabad? If yes (i) Name of the test and purpose thereof, Name and address of the doctor who adv iced/ referred Aditya for the above test and details of test-fee paid viz. Receipt No., date & amount of test-fee paid along with a Xerox copy of the Receipt and (ii) Result/test report details along with a Xerox copy of the test report mentioning the ailment for. In the month of June, 2006. Xerox copy of Receipt No. 14408 dated 14.6.2006 of CDFD is enclosed herewith for verification please. To this he received a response from Shri Sanjiv Roy PIO, CDFD stating as follows: As per the provisions of Section 8(j)(sic) of the RTI Act, the information sought by you relates to 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 and I am satisfied that no larger pubic interest justifies disclosure of such information, and the same cannot be provided to you under the RTI Act. Aggrieved by this response Shri Madhok moved his first appeal before the first Appellate Authority, CDFD pleading that the applicant had the genuine right to seek the information as sought in his application dated 17.8.06. First Appellate Authority of the CDFD Shri Rao in his response of 7.12.06 held as follows : The information sought by you concerning the details and the results of the test at CDFD in respect of Mr. Aditya cannot be provided to you as the tests were not conducted at your request. This Centre is required to maintain the confidentiality of the tests and the results thereof and the same will be disclosed only to those individuals and the organizations, which have approached for such tests. Further, the information required by you relates to 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. As such, the Public Information Officer is justified in denying to furnish the information sought by you In view of the exemption under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Shri Madhok has, therefore, moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer: It is .. prayed that the Honble Central Information Commission may please to allow this appeal and direct the PIO, CDFD, Hyderabad to provide the required information to the applicant in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the RTI Act, 2005. It is further prayed that the PIO, CDFD, Hyderabad may kindly be directed to communicate the following details in his information to the applicant:-
i. Serial number of the first and last receipt of CDFD, Hyderabad dated 14.6.2006 for the Karyotyping Fragile-X &Urine Screen test.
ii. The purpose and prescribed fee for the above test, and
iii. If there is any CDFD receipt numbered 14408 dated 14.6.2006, the date of collection of report along with a certified Xerox copy of the above receipt (for which the Xerox charges have already been deposited with the CDFD by the applicant vide D. Draft NO. 020436 dated 17.8.2006 for Rs. 20/- only of the Central Bank of India). The appeal was heard by Videoconference on 26.10.2007. The following are present: Appellant: Shri Arjesh Kumar Madhok Respondents: Shri Sanjeev Rao, PIO, CDFD Hyderabad Shri V.H. Rao, Appellate Authority, CDNA Hyderabad. The original request of the appellant Shri Madhok has two components (i) the results of the tests and (ii) verification of the authenticity of the receipt. With regard to results of the tests Shri V.H. Rao, Appellate Authority has rightly held that this is personal information held in trust by the CDFD. On the other hand confirming the authenticity of the receipt cannot be so described. Respondents readily agreed to authenticate the fact that the receipt was genuine. Appellant on the other hand has argued that what he meant by authentication was that the receipt referred actually to his son Aditya, since only the first name has been mentioned. He also suspects that his wife has actually forged the receipt since the handwriting resembles hers. He has, therefore, sought samples of other receipts to authenticate this. He further argued that his suspicions were aroused because his wife, from whom he has separated has claimed that their son is mentally retarded whereas while the son was with him he scored well in School, and he could produce the school documents to verify this fact. DECISION NOTICE The two issues before us are as follows:
1. Whether the DNA tests can be revealed to a party other than the one who has obtained them?
2. Whether the receipt is authentic. ISSUE NO. 1 : The relationship between a doctor and patient or a lawyer and client fall squarely within the definition of fiduciary relations. In this case even were sec. 8(1)(j) not to apply sec. 8(1)(e) will. The disclosure of diagnostic information o a private citizen can only be supplied by the party concerned directly and not by the confidante, in this case the CDFD. The decision of CPIO on this issue is, therefore upheld. ISSUE NO. 2 : We have perused the sample of the wifes handwriting submitted by appellant and received by us through scan during the hearing. Even were there reasonable ground for suspicion that the handwriting on the receipt is the same as that on the sample stated to belong to Shri Madhoks wife-and a patient may readily be required to fill a receipt form-the key issue would be the signature on the receipt, which is clearly of one Srinivas, from whom the CPIO can readily verify its authenticity. The plea of appellant Shri Madhok made during the hearing that he would like copies of other receipts of the same day and the previous day to verify his doubts is not admissible, as this would mean handing out receipts of third parties, which may not appreciate such a liberty taken Shri V.H.Rao Appellate Authority CDFD Hyderabad will, therefore, enquire into this matter to verify the authenticity of the existing receipt and that it refers to the information in question and send his affirmation of the same to appellant Shri Madhok within one week of the date of receipt of this decision. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Decision on issue 1 announced in the hearing, and on issue 2 after studying the scanned documents received by Email.. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. (Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 26.10.2007 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission. (Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 26.10.2007