MR X ....................Appellant Versus Hospital Z ..................Respondent - (1998)8 Supreme Court Cases 296

~ A Critical Analysis.
Facts Of The Case:
The facts of the case in brief were as follows:
1. The Appellants blood was to be transfused to another and therefore a sample thereof was taken at the Respondents Hospital.

2. The Appellant was found to be H.I.V.(+).

3. On account of disclosure of the fact that the Appellant was H.I.V.(+) by the Hospital authorities without the express consent of the Appellant, the Appellants proposed marriage to Ms A which had earlier been accepted, was called off.

4. Moreover, the Appellant was severely criticized and was also ostracized by the community to such an extent that he had to leave is place of work and residence and shift to a new city.

5. The Appellant approached the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission for damages against the Respondents on account of injury and damages suffered to him because of disclosure of information required to be kept secret under medical ethics by the Hospital authorities.

6. The Commission however dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Appellant could seek his remedy in the Civil Court.

7. The Appellant thus appeared before the Supreme Court contending that the principle of Duty of care applicable to persons in medical profession included the Duty to maintain confidentiality and the said duty had a correlative right vested in the patient that whatever came to the knowledge of the doctor would not be divulged.

8. The Appellant contended that for violating the above duty as well as the Appellants right to privacy, the Respondents were liable to pay damages.

Issues Before The Supreme Court:
The issues before the Supreme Court were as follows:
1. Whether the Respondents were guilty of violating the Appellants right to privacy guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution? 2. Whether the Respondents were guilty of violating their duty to maintain secrecy under medical Ethics?

Judgement Of The Supreme Court:
The Judgement of the Supreme Court was as follows:
1. In deciding the first issue, the Court held that in the event of a conflict between the Appellants fundamental right to privacy and Ms As fundamental right to be informed about any threat to her life/health, in such an event the Latters right to be informed will override the Appellants right to privacy. Hence the Court held the Respondents not guilty on the first count.

2. In deciding the second issue, the Court held that the duty to maintain secrecy in every Doctor-Patient relationship was also not absolute and such duty could be broken and hence secret divulged where compelling public interest so requires. Hence the Court held the Respondents not guilty on the second count as well.

3. The Court further held that The Appellants right to marry was suspended until complete cure of the Appellants dreadful disease. The Court based this decision on various Statutes which give right to spouse to seek divorce on ground of the other suffering from a communicable venereal disease such as AIDS.

4. The Court held that in the event the Appellant did decide to marry while suffering from such dreadful disease, he shall be punishable under section 269 & 270 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The court held that AIDS is the product of undisciplined sexual impulse. This impulse being a notorious human failing if not disciplined can afflict and overtake anyone however high or low he may be in social strata. The Court cannot assist that person to achieve that object.

6. The Court held that the Hippocratic Oath taken by medical men at time of entering profession is not enforceable in the Court of law as it lacks statuary force.