VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Appellant s right to privacy or confidentiality against hospital was not affected in any manner in revealing his HIV positive status to the relatives of the fiancee.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 13-Summary procedure under-Interim relief-Intermediary Application for clarifications/directions in C.A.No. 4641 of 1998-Right of H.I.V. or AIDS infected persons-Is there any bar for the marriage between HIV(+) petitioner and the healthy counterpart, when she consents to marry inspite of being aware of the fact that the other spouse is suffering from the said discease (IPC 1860-Sections 269 and 270)-Right to privacy or confidentiality between patient and doctor/hospital-Hospital coming to know that petitioner was HIV(+)-Informed his uncle who informed the family of girl-Marriage was suspended-Claim for compensation and interim relief to National Commission-Referred to Civil Court-Appeal against.
Held : The various organisations to which the notice was issued have also entered their appearance before this Court and filed plethora of material giving their respective stands. The practical difficulties in ensuring disclosure to the person proposed to be married or in monitoring such cases are pointed out. It is unnecessary to examine these matters in any detail inasmuch as in our view this Court had rested its decision on the facts of the case that it was open to the hospital or the Doctor concerned to reveal such information to persons related to the girl whom he intended to marry and she had a right to know about the HIV positive status of the appellant. If that was so, there was no need for this Court to go further and declare in general as to what rights 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 would commit an offence under law or whether such right is suspended during the period of illness. Therefore, all those observations made by this Court in the aforesaid matter were unnecessary, particularly when there was no consideration of the matter after notice to all the parties concerned. In that view of the matter, we hold that the observations made by this Court, except to the extent of holding as stated earlier that the appellant s right was not affected in any manner in revealing his HIV positive status to the relatives of his fiancée, are uncalled for. We dispose of these applications with these observations. (Paras 7 and 8)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-Civil Appeal No.4641 of 1998 arose out of an order made by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the Commission ) dismissing a petition and also an application for interim relief summarily by an order made on 3.7.1998 on the ground that the appellant should seek his remedy in a civil court.

2. The case that arose for consideration before this Court, in brief, is as follows.

3. The appellant completed his studies leading to Degree of MBBS from Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh in the year 1988. In June 1990 he joined the Nagaland State Medical and Health Service as Assistant Surgeon Grade-1 and thereafter he was selected for admission to MD Pharmacology. However, he was continued in service on the condition that he would join his duties after completing his studies. Later on, he was given admission in Diploma in Opthamalogy in September 1991 and he completed that course in April 1993 and rejoined his service in the Nagaland State as Assistant Surgeon Grade-1 as Junior Specialist. He was deputed to accompany his uncle who was a Minister of Transport and Communication to the respondent hospital at Chennai and who was diagnosed as suffering from Aortic Anuerism. As the patient was anaemic, the surgery was postponed. The appellant and his driver offered to donate blood and blood samples of the appellant were sent for testing. In the meanwhile, the patient was operated upon for Aortic Anuerism and was discharged from the hospital on 10.6.1995 and the appellant and his driver took him to Dimapur. The appellant was engaged to be married which was scheduled to be held on 12.12.1995. The appellant, his fiancee and his mother-in-law left for Darjeeling and Kolkatta to do some shopping and thereafter on 18.10.1995 they returned to Kohima. On 12.11.1995 the Minister of Transport and Communication called the appellant s brother-in-law and sister to his residence and informed that the appellant s marriage was being called off: that the appellant s blood was tested at hospital; that it was found to be HIV positive: that this information had been furnished to him by a Doctor [who was impleaded as respondent No.2]; that he had of his own accord re-confirmed the appellant s HIV status by personally calling the respondent No. 2 and was informed by him of the same. Therefore, the marriage of the appellant was called off on account of his HIV positive status by his brother-in-law. Next day the appellant want to the hospital for further confirmation and it was confirmed that he was HIV positive. The appellant tried to contact the Director of the Hospital to enquire about the unauthorised disclosure by the hospital about his HIV status as he was unable to obtain any information from the management regarding the said disclosure. As a result thereof, he was forced to leave Kohima as several people including the appellant s own family members and certain other members of the community were now aware of the appellant s HIV positive status and he was socially ostracised. Aggrieved by the unauthorised disclosure and on the basis that the hospital had a duty to maintain the confidentiality of personal medical information of the appellant, he filed a petition before the Commission seeking compensation from the respondents for breach of their duty to maintain confidentiality and consequential discrimination, loss in earnings and social ostracism. For interim relief an interlocutory application was also filed. In those circumstances, the Commission dismissed the petition summarily and directed him to initiate civil proceeding for an appropriate relief.

4. A Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court. This Court made an order on 21.9.1988 dismissing the said petition. However, in the course of the order several findings have been given, particularly those relating to suspended right to marry . In that proceeding, this court heard only the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1214

VERY IMPORTANT POINTAppellant s right to privacy or confidentiality against hospital was not affected in any manner in revealing his HIV positive status to the relatives of the fiancee.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Appellant s right to privacy or confidentiality against hospital was not affected in any manner in revealing his HIV positive status to the relatives of the fiancee.