Thursday, July 26, 2012

SAVE ON MEDICINES

Medicines are prescribed by doctors by brand name & not by the generics (Ingredients). Hence we end up paying more money for the same medicine. Follow these few steps to know more & start saving on your medical bills.
 
1. Log on to www.medguideindia.com
2. Click on 'Drugs'
3. Click on 'Brand'
4. Type the brand name which you are using (e. g. Metocard XL (50 mg). The site will also help you with drop down menu) & Click on 'Search'
5. Click on 'Generics'. It will display the ingredients of the tablet.
6. Click on 'matched brands'
7. Don't be surprised to see that same drug is available at very low cost also. And that to by other reputed manufacturer. e. g. Metocard XL 50 is for Rs. 62.00 & same drug by Cipla (Mepol) is available ONLY @ Rs. 7.00.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Language of Reply under RTI


Available also at :https://www.box.com/s/ab03d7ae691295c6c5ed

RTI applicants face problem of language of reply, specially if information is sought from other states. I had sought information from BBMP [municipal corporation] Bengaluru and had requested that information be supplied in English. However, I received reply in Kannada and I had to email to my relative to translate it. I append below relevant extract from judgment of High Court of Uttarakhand.

I infer that information supplied in language which the applicant does not understand is no information. PIO should supply either in English, Hindi or State language of PIO as per choice of applicant.

Recently, in Gujarat entire land acquisition process was declared invalid because notices were published in Gujarati newspapers, but notices were in Hindi which most of the affected farmers do not understand.

I hope this will be useful to applicants.


Extract:


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 2130 OF 2009 (MS)

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
Versus
Uttarakhand State Information Commission & Others

Decision dated 27-03-2010

“It is a common misconception prevailing even today that information must be given to citizens only when it is asked. This is not the case. Most of the information has to be given by the public authority, suo motu, under Section 4 of the Act which has to be periodically updated by various means of communications, including internet so that the public should have a minimum resort to the use of this Act for obtaining information. In other words the endeavour of the public authority should be such that the information should be readily available to citizens by available means of communication, including internet and the other means so that they may not have to request for information under Section 6 of the Act. Under Section 6 of the Act only a formal request has to be made in writing to the public information officer of a public authority which is duty bound to furnish the information within a period of one month. All the same, before one resorts to Section 6 most of the information concerning the public authority has to be disseminated to public in a manner, “which is easily accessible to the public”.

Now the intention of Legislature is absolutely clear from the unambiguous composition of the language of the statute, referred above. An information must be given to a citizen in the language, which he understands. It is the legislative mandate that “information” must be disseminated considering, inter alia, the “local language” ………… [Emphasis added]

A public authority should facilitate in the easy distribution of information to a citizen. The provisions of the Right to Information Act read in the light of the Constitution of India as well as the Consumer Protection Act speak loud and clear that in the present case, State Consume Commission was duty bound to furnish a translated copy of its judgment/order once such a requisition was made to it.
The approach of the Consumer Commission, however, was patently wrong. Not only was it in violation of sub-sections (3) and (4) to Section 4 of the Act the approach of the petitioner defeats the objects and goals for which the Right to Information Act was enacted. It is elementary that the language of the State being Hindi not only the information was liable to be given to respondent no. 3 in Hindi but more particularly when such an information was sought in Hindi, it was even more necessary for the Consumer Commission to have translated its order in Hindi and supplied the copy to the applicant.”

10072012________________________________________________________