Important points:
The documents relating to the treatment records of a mentally ill person has a material bearing on the case, the court must then consider whether non-production will cause prejudice to the person seeking production. If answers to both the aforesaid questions are in the affirmative only then will the court be justified in ordering production of treatment records of a mentally ill person.

JUDGMENT :

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Can a party to a litigation seek production of the medical records of a stranger to the lis especially those relating to a person with alleged mental illness? Such a question has arisen for consideration in this case.

2. Petitioner is the holder of a degree in M.Tech with second rank in the University. She complains of an intrusion into her rights of privacy brought about on account of a court certificate issued by the Family Court, Pala, for producing medical records of treatment undergone by the petitioner and her mother in a hospital.

3. Petitioner's sister and her husband are respondents 1 and 2. They are litigants in a proceeding for divorce, pending as O.P.(Div.) No.584 of 2017 before the Family Court, Pala, initiated by the 2nd respondent. Petitioner is a stranger to the said proceedings.

4. Petitioner pleads that. recently, she came to know that her medical treatment records were handed over by the respective hospitals to the 2nd respondent for producing in O.P. (Div.) No.584 of 2017 of Family Court, Pala, on the basis of Ext.P5 Court Certificate issued by the said court. Petitioner apprehends that the treatment records are obtained to defame her family. Petitioner pleads that neither her mother nor herself are parties in the Family Court. Petitioner further pleads that her medical issues are unconnected with the issues arising in the divorce proceedings between her sister and her husband and also that such third party information are protected from disclosure by the principles of privacy, which has become a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India, unless she consents to its production.

5. Petitioner further contends that it had come to her knowledge that by Ext.P4 application dated 28.12.2018 filed as I.A. No.1353 of 2018, the 3rd respondent sought for a court certificate for production of medical treatment records of the petitioner and even that of her mother, undergone by them allegedly for their mental health issues. Thereafter, the Family Court by an endorsement on the said petition, allowed the application in one word as “Issue”. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the Family Court. At the time of filing this original petition, petitioner had produced only a typed copy of the aforesaid order, referring to it as an endorsement made by the court on the docket page of Ext.P4 application. Subsequently, a certified copy of the order has been obtained and produced in this case as Ext.P5. The said order in I.A. No.1353 of 2018 dated 29.12.2018 reads as “Issue”. It is pointed out that on the basis of the aforesaid order, the hospitals referred to in the application had handed over the medical records of the petitioner and her mother to the 2nd respondent, who in turn produced the same before the Family Court.

6. When this case came up for admission before us, while issuing notice to the respondents, by our order dated 22.7.2020, we directed the Family Court, Pala to keep the medical record/report received, pursuant to Ext.P5, in a sealed cover in the safe custody of the Judicial Officer himself, without divulging the details to any person.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent-sister of the petitioner, stating that there are three cases pending before the Family Court between her and her husband and that the medical records of her sister and her mother are not relevant in the litigation between her and her husband. She further avers that the attempt of the 2nd respondent is to tarnish the image of the family by targeting her siblings and her mother, so as to compel her to agree for a divorce.

8. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that one of the grounds for seeking divorce against the 1st respondent is her psychiatric problems and that the medical treatment records of the petitioner as well as her mother have relevance in the case, for the purpose of proving his contention that there is a hereditary psychiatric problem for his wife. He fu