Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 1051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Devendra and Others – Petitioners
Versus
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and Others – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 212 of 2024
Decided On : 02-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: R.S. Saluja, Anmol Saluja, Lalit Kishore Sen, Yashpal Singh Rajpurohit
For the Respondents: Mukesh Rajpurohit, Prakash Raika
IMPORTANT POINT
Patients and their close relatives have a constitutional right to access medical reports, which is essential for informed healthcare decisions.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Denial of medical reports to patient and relatives - Petitioners sought medical reports for Asharam @ Ashumal, an inmate at AIIMS - Court held that patients and close relatives have a right to access medical information, which is a facet of the right to health under Article 21. (Paras 15, 16, 23)
(B) Right to Information - The court emphasized that while medical information is generally confidential, it cannot be withheld from the patient or close relatives, as it impinges on their rights. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought medical reports for Asharam @ Ashumal, who is undergoing treatment at AIIMS Hospital, citing refusal by authorities to provide information.
Findings of Court:
The court directed AIIMS to provide medical reports to the patient or close relatives, affirming their right to access such information.
Issues: The main issue was whether the denial of medical reports to the patient and his relatives violated their rights under the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to access medical information is implicit in the right to health under Article 21, and such information cannot be arbitrarily withheld.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to provide copies of the medical report and other reports in relation to treatment of Asharam @ Ashumal, who is admitted in AIIMS Hospital since 23.01.2024.
2. Said Asharam @ Ashumal, aged 85 years is stated to be convicted and is reported to be serving his sentence in Central Jail, Jodhpur.
3. The petitioner No. 1 claims himself to be the Manager of Ashram being run under the aegis of the patient (Asharam @ Ashumal) while petitioner No. 2 is sister of said patient.
4. The petitioners have averred that Asharam @ Ashumal is undergoing treatment in AIIMS Hospital, Jodhpur on account of chest pain, anemia and other health related issues. According to the petitioners looking to the complications and multiple ailments, they want to take opinion of experts and take him to higher centre for treatment.
5. It is contended by the petitioners that on request being made, the Authorities of the AIIMS Hospital have refused to provide them medical reports, etc. for no tenable reason.
6. Mr. Saluja, learned counsel submitted that even an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2005') filed by the lawyer of the petitioners has been turned down by the Authorities of the AIIMS Hospital, on the ground that it is barred by the impediment provided under the provisions of Section 8 (1)(j) of the Act of 2005.
7. Learned counsel argued that denial of the documents relating to a patient amounts to violation of his Fundamental Right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. Learned counsel submitted that howsoever experts or specialists the Doctors at AIIMS maybe, a patient and his relatives have a right to seek opinion from the experts for better care and treatment of the patient. He argued that such information and reports cannot be withheld.
9. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the information has rightly been refused as the patient is an in house patient at AIIMS and providing copies of the report may interfere in administration of the Institute on the one hand and can adversely affect the health of the patient on the other.
10. So far as the application filed under the Act of 2005 is concerned, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General submitted that the same was furnished by one Lalit Kishore, purportedly an advocate of the patient and therefore, the same has rightly been rejected keeping in view the spirit of the provisions of Act of 2005.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. So far as providing information to advocate of the patient (Lait Kishore) or any person other than the patient under the Act of 2005 is concerned, this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the stand of the AIIMS Authorities.
13. Medical report and documents relating to the treatment are privy to the patient and such information cannot be divulged to common man or even an advocate under the provision of Act of 2005.
14. But, when such information is being asked for by the patient himself or his close relatives such as brother, sister, father, mother, son, etc. the authorities cannot refuse to provide the same.
15. The patient and his relatives have a right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution to get best treatment and obtaining copies of the medical reports and prescription, etc. is a facet of such implicit right.
16. A patient may like to consult any expert under the sun, no hospital much less a State run hospital can refuse to provide such information. The stand of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that the same shall be provided only at the time of discharge is untenable in the eye of law apart from being arbitrary. Such denial also impinges upon right of a citizen guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
17. The petition is, therefore, allowed
