| Headnote |
MR. "X" v. HOSPITAL "Z" DECEMBER I 0, 2002 [S. RAJENDRA BABU, P. VENKATARAMA REDD! AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] MedicalEthics-Right to privacy: A B P.erson suffering from AIDS/HIV(+)-Disclosure of the factum of disease C to therelatives of fianceeby thehospital authority-Complaint againstHospital dismissedby NationalConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission-S.L.P. disposed of by SupremeCourt withouthearingany partyupholdingthe order of Commission-TheCourt made certain observationi; touchingother aspects Writ petition filed for settingaside the judgment-Convertinginto I.A. the D Court held, such observationsunrelated to the issuethat aroseexcept to the extent of holdingthat appellant'sright was not affected in anymanner in revealinghis HIV(+) status to therelative of his fiancee-Hence unnecessary Constitution of India,Articles 21, 32. Appellantin mainappealwho was a medical practitioner was E engagedto be married. In connectionwith donationof bloodto his relative his bloodsamplewas tested in the respondent-hospital. He wasfound sufferingfrom HIV (+), and the hospitalauthoritiesdisclosed the fact about his sufferingfrom AIDS to therelativeof his fiancee,wherebythe appellantwas sociallyostracisedand the proposedmarriage was called off.Aggrieved, appellant filedpetitionbefore Consumer Disputes RedressalCommissionfor reliefwhichwas dismissedwith an observation thatthe appellanthas to seek remedy in a CivilCourt.Appellantfiled an S.L.P. whichwas disposedof by the Courtwithoutissuanceof noticeto F any partyand withouthearing any person or organisation,but several findingswere given by this Courtwith particularreference to "suspended O right to marry" and also on the questionwhether the patient who marries commitsan offenceunder Sections269 and 270 !PC [19981 8 sec 296. Appellantagain approachedthis Court by filinga WritPetitionfor setting asidethe judgment;the petition was ordered to be treatedas an I.A. for clarificationof earlierorder. In substancethe petitionerwanted the Court H 661 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A to clarify that there is no bar forthe marriage if the healthy spouse consentsto marry in spite of beingmade awareof thefactthat the other spouse is sufferingfrom the saiddisease. Disposingof theI.A.,the Court B HELD: It is unnecessaryto examinethese matters in any detail inasmuchas this Court hadrestedits earlierdecisionon thefactsof the casethat it wasopento thehospital or the Doctorconcernedto reveal such informationto personsrelated to thegirlwhom he intendedto marry andshe hada rightto knowaboutthe HIVpositivestatus of theappellant. If that wasso, therewas no nee.d for this Court to go further anddeclare C in generalas to whatrightsand obligationsarise in such contextas to right toprivacy or confidentiality or whethersuch persons are entitledto be married or not or intheevent suchpersons marry they wouldcommitan offenceunder law or whethersuch right is suspendedduring the period of illness.Therefore,all thoseobservationsmade by this Court in the D matter wereunnecessary,particularly when therewas no consideration ofthematter after noticeto allthepartiesconcerned. The observations made earlier bythis Court, exceptto theextent of holding that the appellant'sright was not affected in anymannerin revealinghis HIV positive status to therelativesof hisfiancee, are uncalledfor. (665-D-G] E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appe_al LA.Nos.2, 3, F 5,6,7, and 9 of 2000. IN CivilAppealNo. 4641 of 1998. Fromthe Judgmentand Order dated 3.7.1998 of the NationalConsumer DisputesRedressalCommission,New Delhi in D.P. No. 88 of 1998. KiritRaval,SolicitorGeneral, Jayant Das, Ms. MeenakshiArora, Anand Grover, S. RavindraBhat, Naveen R. Nath,Ms. LalitMohiniBhat, Mr. Hetu G Arora, Shiv Kr. Suri,SanjayParikh, Ms. Sumita Das, S. Santhanan Swaminandhan, Maninder Singh, A. Mariarputham,Ankur Talwar,Ms. Pratibha, M. Singh, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ajit Pudussery, K.C.Ranjeet,E.C. Vidya Sagar, S. Murlidhar,Ms. FlaviaAgies,Ms. V. Mohana,Ms. Veena Gowda, Dayan Krishnan,Trideep Pais and Shreyas Jayasinha for theappearing H parties .. ' . ' MR. "'X"' "·HOSPITAL ··z·· [S. RAJENDRA BABU. J.] 663 Tnc Judgment of the Courtwas deliveredby A RAJENDRA BABU, J, Civil Appeal No. 4641 of 1998 aroseout of an ordermade by theNationalConsumerDisputes RedressalCommission(for short'the Commission')dismissing a petitionand also an applicationfor interimrelief summarilyby an order made on 3.7.1998on thegroundthat the appellantshould seek his remedy in a civilcourt. B The case that arose f~r considerationbefore this Court, in brief, is as follows. The appellantcompletedhis studiesleadingto Degree of MBBS from C JawaharlalInstitute of Post Graduate Medical Educationand Research, Chandigarh in theyear1988. In June 1990 he joinedthe Nagaland State Medicaland HealthService as Assistant Surgeon Grade-Iand thereafterhe wasselectedfor admissionto MD Pharmacology.However, he wascontinued in serviceon theconditionthat he wouldjoinhis dutiesafter completinghis studies.Later on, he was givenadmission in Diplomain Opthamalogy in D September 1991 and he completedthat course in April1993 and rejoinedhis service in theNagaland State as Assistant Surgeon Grade-Ias JuniorSpecialist. He was deputedto accompanyhis unclewho was a Minister of Transportand Communicationto therespondenthospital at Chennaiand whowas diagnosed as sufferingfrom AorticAnuerism.As thepatientwas anaemic,the.surgery E was postponed.The appellantand his driverofferedto donateblood and bloodsamples of the appellantwere sent for testing. In themeanwhile,the patientwas operatedupon for AorticAnuerismand wasdischargedfrom the hospital on 10.6.1995 andthe appellantand his drivertook him to Dimapur. Theappellantwas engagedto bemarriedwhich was scheduledto beheldon 12.12.1995.The appellant,his fianceeand his mother-in-lawleft for Darjeeling F andKolkattato dosomeshoppingand thereafteron 18. I 0.1995 they returned toKohima. On 12.1 .1995the Minister of Transportand Communication calledthe appellant'sbrother-in-lawand sisterto hisresidenceand informed thatthe appellant'smarriage was beingcalledoff; thatthe appellant'sblood wastestedat hospital;that it wasfound to be HIVpositive;that this information G hadbeenfurnishedto himby a Doctor[who was imp leadedas respondent No.2]; thathe had of hisownaccordre-confirmedthe appellant'sHIV status bypersonallycalling the respondentNo. 2 andwasinformedby him of the same.Therefore,the marriage of the appellantwas called off on account of hisHIVpositivestatus by hisbrother-in-law.Next day the appellantwent to thehospitalfor furtherconfirmationand it was confirmedthat he wasHIV H 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A positive.The appellanttried to contactthe Director of the Hospital to enquire aboutthe unauthoriseddisclosure by the hospitalabout his HIV status as he· was unableto obtainany informationfrom the managementregarding the said disclosure.As a resultthereof,he wasforcedto leaveKohimaas several peopleincludingthe appellant'sown familymembersand certainother B members of the communitywere now aware of the appellant's HIV positive statusand he wassociallyostracised.Aggrievedby theunauthoriseddisclosure and on thebasisthat the hospitalhad a dutyto maintainthe confidentiality of personalmedical information of the appellant,he fileda petitionbefore theCommissionseeking compensationfrom the respondentsfor breach of theirduty to maintainconfidentialityand consequentialdiscrimination,loss C in earningsand socialostracism.For interimrelief an interlocutoryapplication wasalsofiled.In thosecircumstances,the Commissiondismissed the petition summarilyand directedhim to initiate civil proceedingfor an appropriate relief. A SpecialLeave Petitionwas filedbeforethis Court.This Courtmade D an order on 21.9.1998dismissingthe saidpetition.However,in thecourse of the orderseveralfindingshave been given,particularlythose relatingto "suspended right to marry". In thatproceeding,this courtheardonly the appellantand therewas no issue of noticeto anyother personnor thisCourt hadoccasionto hearany of the personsrepresentingthe HIV or AIDSinfected E persons or their rights,much less any of the NonGovernmentOrganisations whichare doingwork in the fieldwereheard. In thosecircumstances,a writ petitionwas filedunderArticle32 of the Constitutionbefore this Courtfor settingaside the saidjudgment.However, in the proceedingsdated 7.2.2000 it was notedthat prayerwas deletedand the otherprayerwhich indirectly concernedthe correctness of the judgmentalready passed was alsodeleted. F However,the petitionwas orderedto betreatedas anapplicationfor clarificationor directionsin thecasealreadydecidedby thisCourt. In the course of theorderit wasobservedthat : "We directthe officeshall not treatthis as a writpetitionfiled under Article32, butshallregisterit separatelyas an IA forclarification/ G directionsin C.A.No. 4641/1998. H Notice of this IA returnablewithin two weeksshall be issuedto NationalAids ControlOrganisation, Union of India and IndianMedical Associationwhich is alreadyrepresented in IA Nos.2-3. Noticeshall also go toMedicalCouncil of India. Dasti service is permitted in addition." .. ' - MR. ··x·· '.HOSPITAL ··r (S. RAJENDRA BABU. J.J 665 By an order dated 2.9.2001, it has beenfurtherdirectedthat the I.As. A should be listedbeforea threeJudgeBench. In I.A. 2/1999 filed by the impleadedpetitioner. the petitionerhas raised the question Vhether a person suffering from HIV (+) contracting 111arriage with a vvilling partner after disclosing the factum of disease to that partner will be committingan offencewithin the meaning of Section 269 and B 270 !PC. In substance,the petitionerwants the Court to clarifythat there is no barfor themarriage, if thehealthyspouse consentsto marry in spite of beingmade aware of the factthat the otherspouseis sufferingfrom the said disease. The variousorganisations to which the notice was issuedhave also C enteredtheir appearancebefore this Court and filedplethora of material giving their respective stands. The practical difficulties in ensuring disclosure to thepersonproposedto bemarriedor in monitoringsuch cases are pointed out. It is unnecessaryto examinethese matters in any detailinasmuchas in our view this Court had restedits decisionon thefacts of thecasethat it was D opento thehospitalor theDoctorconcernedto revealsuch informationto . persons related to thegirlwhomhe intendedto marryand she hada .rightto knowaboutthe HIVpositivestatus of the appellant. If that wasso, therewas noneedfor this Court to gofurtherand declarein generalas to whatrights and obligations arise in such context as to right to privacy or confidentiality or whether such persons are entitled to be married or not or in the event such persons marry they VOuld co1nmit an offence under law or Vhether such right is suspendedduring the period of illness.Therefore,all thoseobservations madeby this Court in theaforesaidmatter were unnecessary,particularly whenthere was no consideration of thematterafter noticeto alltheparties concerned. In thatview of the matter,we holdthat the observationsmade by this Court, except to theextent of holdingas statedearlierthat the appellant's rightwas not affected in anymanner in revealinghis HIV positive status to therelatives of his fiancee,are uncalledfor. We dispose of theseapplications E F withtheseobservations. G S.K.S. I.As. disposed of. |
