FACTS IN BRIEF :- The appellant was a doctor in the Nagaland State Medical Services who accompanied his Uncle, a patient of Aortic Aneurism, to Chennai in whose surgery he was required to donate blood. Before the donation his blood samples were sent for testing, wherein he was found to be HIV+, which was communicated to his patient uncle. The appellant was engaged to be married on 12.12.1995. The appellant’s uncle let his brother-in-law know that the Appellant was HIV+ one month before the scheduled date of marriage on which ground the marriage was being called off. He also mentioned that the information, as to the HIV+ status, was furnished to him by the Doctor (respondent 2) of Hospital Z (respondent 1).
Consequently, the brother-in-law called off the marriage the next day. The Appellant tried to contact the Respondents about the unauthorized disclosure by the Hospital as to his health status but got no satisfactory reply from the Management. Thereupon he went before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking compensation interim relief for the breach of duty to maintain confidentiality, and the consequent discrimination, loss of earning and social ostracism. The Appellant alleged that as a result of the calling off of his marriage, the whole community had come to know about his HIV+ status, as a result whereof he was facing social ostracism.
ARGUMENTS:- The appellant contended that,;
The principle of medical ethics of the ‘Duty to take care’ also included the ‘Duty to maintain confidentiality’ and the Respondent having breached the same by informing the uncle of the Appellant on their own accord had breached the same.
The duty to maintain secrecy as vested with the medical professionals had a correlative right vested on the patient that whatever come to the knowledge of the Doctor would not be divulged.
The duty to maintain Confidentiality as to the health of the patient was also enforceable, being provided for in the Code of Medical Ethics, formulated to regulate the conduct of the medical practitioners by the Indian Medical Council.
That the disclosure of the fact that the Appellant was HIV+ positive was violation of his Right to Privacy.
JUDGMENT:- The Appeal is dismissed on the ground that the fact that the Appellant was found HIV+ and subsequent disclosure was not violative of the Right to Privacy or the Rule of Confidentiality as the prospective bride of the Appellant was saved in time by the disclosure, or else she would also have been infected by the deadly disease, had the marriage not been called off.
In coming to such conclusion, the Court held, (a) the argument of Duty to maintain Confidentiality was not acceptable as the proposed marriage carried with it a health risk to an identifiable person who could be protected from being infected by the said disease, which is communicable and incurable, (b) Hippocratic Oath, from which the Duty to maintain Secrecy terminates, was not enforceable in the court of law, (c) in certain circumstances such as, the investigation or prosecution of a serious crime or where there was an immediate or future risk of health hazard to others, the Duty to maintain Secrecy was overridden by Public Interest, (d) the right to privacy was subject to compelling public interest (as held in Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1295), (e) the fact that the Doctor is morally and ethically bound to maintain the secrecy as to the information imparted by the patient is subject to the Rights of another person to be informed that may clash with those of the patient’s right to be informed. Thus the one more important takes precedence, (f) the lady to whom the Appellant was getting married had the Fundamental Right of ‘Right to Life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution, which included the “Right to Healthy Life”. Therefore the Right to Life of another individual took precedence over the Right to Privacy and Confidentiality of the patient. (g) That the presence of venereal disorders was a valid ground for divorce. Thus if the disease that the Appellant was suffering from, constituted a valid ground for divorce, being concealed from her that the man she was marrying was suffering from virulent venereal disease, then the marriage needs to be injuncted from being entered into to prevent the man from spoiling the health and consequently the life of an innocent human being (h) the Right to marry also vested on the very same person the Duty to duly inform the future partner about a virulent ailment. That ‘Right to Marry’ could not be enforced in a Court of law unless the person was cured of the disease and till then it remained a ‘Suspended Right’ (i) that the spread of a virulent disease dangerous to life was a penal offence under Sec. 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code. Had the Respondents kept silent about the ailment of the Appellant, then they would have actually aided the penal offence, thereby becoming participient criminis.
FOR COMMON MAN:- An important judgment on the rights of AIDS patients, the judgment shows the clash of interests between the rights of such patients and the rights of the world at large to be informed of the same in order to take adequate precautions from getting affected by it. No doubt the judgment exposes the AIDS patients to the world at large and leaves out a scope of a dignified life away from social ostracism but it seems to be justified on the ground that such right cannot be allowed to get other person affected from the same. Therefore the Court justified the act of the Hospital to inform the prospective bride of the fact of the Appellant being HIV+.
0 Comments