CMO is covering up Medical Negligence of his subordinate by neglecting sought information related to specific cases that require transparency and accountability. It happened in case of Mahima Maurya, where the lack of proper oversight resulted in serious consequences that could have been avoided with adequate attention.
Such issues not only endanger the public’s trust but also promote corruption in the workings of public authority. An activist has now stepped forward to challenge the actions of Mirzapur CMO over the alleged negligence, highlighting the critical need for a thorough investigation into the matter.
The activist cites an “illegal” RTI denial as evidence of the ongoing cover-up, signifying a larger problem regarding the access to information and the integrity of public officials who are meant to serve the community.
This situation underscores the necessity for reform within the healthcare system to ensure that no individual suffers due to administrative oversights or negligence.
Medical Negligence Cover-Up? Activist Files RTI First Appeal Against CMO Mirzapur
Published: September 18, 2025
In a significant move to challenge the opacity of the public health administration, activist Mr. Yogi M P Singh has filed a First Appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The appeal targets the Public Information Officer (PIO)-cum-Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Mirzapur. This is due to providing an “unsatisfactory and legally flawed” response to an RTI query. The query concerns a case of potential medical negligence.
The case highlights the crucial role of the RTI Act. It is a tool for ordinary citizens to demand accountability from public authorities.
The Backstory of Medical Negligence: An RTI Seeking Answers
The issue began with an RTI application (No. DIRMH/R/2025/65012) filed on August 11, 2025, which marked the commencement of a significant inquiry into matters of public interest.
Mr. Singh, a concerned citizen and advocate for transparency, sought critical information that was essential for understanding the circumstances surrounding the medical examination of a victim, Mahima Maurya, whose case had garnered considerable attention and sympathy from the community.
This examination took place at the Community Health Center (CHC) in Vindhyachal, a facility that often served as a frontline resource for healthcare in the region.
Given the sensitivity of the situation, the application raised several pointed questions: it aimed to uncover details regarding the protocols followed during the medical examination, the qualifications of the personnel involved, and any follow-up measures taken to ensure the well-being of Mahima Maurya after her examination and treatment.
- On Medical Procedure: Why was an X-ray not conducted on the victim’s thumb at CHC Vindhyachal? A later X-ray at Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Prayagraj, confirmed a fracture.
- On the Medical Officer: What are the posting details of the Medical Officer who prepared the first medical report? When did they join in Mirzapur? What is their specific tenure at CHC Vindhyachal?
- On Service History: What were the first posting details of the said Medical Officer upon joining the health services?
- On Infrastructure: How many X-ray machines are presently available at CHC Vindhyachal, and what is their functional status (working vs. non-functional)?
- On Official Protocol: What are the official guidelines for preparing medico-legal reports in police cases? How can accuracy and impartiality be ensured in these reports?
- On Accountability: Have any departmental actions been taken against the concerned Medical Officer? It concerns the alleged submission of a misleading report. This report led to a miscarriage of justice.
The PIO’s Controversial Response
The reply from the CMO Mirzapur was both evasive and legally questionable in matter of Medical Negligence.
- For the first three points, the PIO cited Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. This related to the medical procedure and the doctor’s service details. The PIO claimed the information was not accessible.
- For the remaining three points—about X-ray machines, protocols, and departmental action—the PIO provided no response whatsoever.
This stonewalling prompted Mr. Singh to escalate the matter to the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
Grounds for the First Appeal: A Takedown of the PIO’s Reply
The appeal was filed today. It systematically dismantles the PIO’s response. The appeal argues that the response is illegal, arbitrary, and a try to conceal information. The key arguments are:
1. Gross Misapplication of Section 11(1)
The PIO incorrectly used Section 11(1) as a reason for denial. This section is not an exemption clause. It is a procedural guideline. It dictates how a PIO must consult a “third party”. If their confidential information considered for disclosure. The PIO did not show that this procedure followed. They also did not prove that the information treated as confidential in the first place. Information officer is overlooking a case of Medical Negligence.
2. Information Sought is Public, Not “Third-Party”
The appeal asserts that the information requested is not private.
- The reason for a medical decision made by a public doctor on duty is part of the official record.
- The posting and service details of a government officer are public information, essential for ensuring transparency and accountability. Citing it as “third-party” information is, as the appeal notes, “absurd and untenable in law.”
3. Public Interest Overrides All
Even if the information were related to a third party, the RTI Act allows for disclosure. This is permissible if the public interest outweighs any potential harm. Uncovering medical negligence, procedural irregularities, and potential corruption is crucial to the public. It should supersede any misplaced privacy concerns.
4. Silence is, Deemed Refusal in public issue of Medical Negligence
The PIO completely ignored points 4, 5, and 6. This action triggered Section 7(2) of the RTI Act. This section treats the lack of a prompt response as a “deemed refusal.” Information on government equipment, official guidelines, and disciplinary actions is available to the public. It is not exempt from disclosure. Even when it concerns the large scale Medical Negligence.
What’s Next?
The First Appeal (Registration No. DIRMH/A/2025/61445) has been formally, received in the office of Additional Director (AD) of the Medical and Health Directorate, Mirzapur. The FAA now legally obligated to review the case and issue a decision, typically within 30 to 45 days.
Mr. Singh has requested the FAA in Medical Negligence case to:
- Set aside the PIO’s illegal response.
- Direct the PIO to give full, point-wise information for all six questions.
- Offer the information free of charge due to the delay and deemed refusal.
- Start disciplinary action against the PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The PIO provided a misleading reply and wrongfully denied information in the case of Medical Negligence.
This case serves as a powerful reminder of the ongoing struggle for transparency in public institutions. The outcome will be, closely watched by accountability advocates and citizens across the region.
Categories: RTI, Law & Justice, Health, Activism, Uttar Pradesh News
Tags: Yogi M P Singh, RTI Act 2005, First Appeal, Medical Negligence, Mirzapur, CMO Mirzapur, Transparency, Accountability, CHC Vindhyachal
Mahima Maurya submitted petition before UPHRC Lucknow against SHO
Mahima Maurya sought information from PIO in office of S.P. Mirzapur
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.