Mr. x v.

Hospital z
(AIR 1999 SC 495)

- Chetna Singh Raghuwanshi (17Bal017)

 Facts

 The Appellant Mr. X was working in the Nagaland state Health service as
assistant surgeon Grade-I
 One Itokhu Yepthomi was ailing from a disease and was advised to go to
the ‘z’ Hospital at Madras and the Appellant was directed by the state
government to accompany him.
 Itokhu‘s surgery was cancelled due to shortage of blood.
 The Appellant and one other person were asked to donate blood.
 The Appellants blood was to be transfused to another and thereof was
taken the respondents Hospital.
 The Appellant was found to be H.I.V.(+).
 On account of disclosure of the fact that the Appellant was H.I.V. (+) by the
hospital authorities without the express consent of the Appellant, the
Appellants proposed marriage to Ms ‘A’ which had earlier been accepted
was called off.
 Moreover, the Appellant was severely criticized and was also ostracized by
the community to such an extent that he had to leave his place of work
and residence and shift to a new city.
 The Appellant approached the national consumer Dispute Redressal
commission for damages against the respondents on account of injury and
damages suffered to him because of disclosure of information required to
be kept secret under medical ethics by the Hospital authorities.
 The commission however dismissed the complaint on the ground that the
Appellant could seek his remedy in the civil court.
 The Appellant thus appeared before the supreme Court contending that
the principle of duty of care applicable to persons in medical profession
included the duty to maintain confidentiality and the said duty had a
correlative right vested in the patient that whatever came to the
knowledge of the doctor would not be divulged
 The Appellant contended that for violating the above duty as well as the
Appellants right to privacy, the respondents were liable to pay damages.
Issues Before The Supreme Court

 Whether the respondents were guilty of violating the Appellant’s right to

privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
 Whether the respondents were guilty of violating the duty to maintain
secrecy under medical ethics?
 Whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation from the
respondents?
Appellant’s Arguments

 Principle of “Duty of care” which has its origin in the Hippocratic Oath and
international code of medical ethics to maintain the confidentiality of the
patient Has been violated.
 Indian medical council Act, under Sec. 20 A r/w Sec 33 also provides the
doctor’s duty to maintain the secrecy of his patient.
 Right to privacy may, arise out of a particular specific relationship like
Doctor patient relationship, though basically commercial, is , professionally ,
a matter of confidence: and, therefore Doctors are morally and ethically
bound to maintain confidentiality. Thus respondents is liable to infringe the
right of privacy of the Appellant.
Respondent’s Arguments

 Every Right has a co- realtive Duty and every Duty has a co-realtive right.
But the rule is not absolute.
 Hippocratic Oath is not enforceable and the code of professional conduct
made by the Medical Council contains an exception that the information
may be disclosed in a court of law under the orders of the presiding judge.
 Public interest, would override the duty of confidentiality, particularly where
there, is an immediate or future health risk to others.
 The right to privacy may even arise from commercial relationships like
Doctor-patient. This relationship will be harmed if the doctor reveals such
information that affects the patient’S ‘right to be left alone’. The right
however is not absolute and may be lawfully restricted for the prevention of
crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and
freedom of others.
 The Appellant was found to be HIV (+), the disclosure would not be
violative of either the rule of confidentiality or the Appellant’s right of
privacy as Ms. ‘Y’ with whom the Appellant was likely to be married was
saved in time by such disclosure, or else, she too would have been infected
with the dreadful disease if marriage had taken place and consummated.
 Judgement

 The court held that in the event of a conflict between the Appellants
fundamental right to privacy and Ms ‘Y’ fundamental right to be informed
about any threat to her life/ health, in such an event the Latter’s right to be
informed will override the Appellants right to privacy. Hence the court held the
respondents not guilty.
 The court held that the duty to maintain secrecy in every Doctor-Patient
relationship was also not absolute and such duty could be broken and hence
secret divulged where compelling public interest so requires. Hence the court
held the respondents not guilty.
 The court further held that the Appellants right to marry was suspended until
complete cure of the Appellant dreadful disease the based this decision on
various statutes which give right to spouse to seek divorce on ground of the
other suffering from a communicable venereal disease such as AIDS.
 The court held that in the event the Appellant did decide to marry while
suffering from such dreadful disease he shall be punishable under section
269 & 270 of IPC.
 The court held that AIDS is the product of indisciplined sexual impulse. This
impulse being a notorious human failing if not disciplined can afflict and
overtake anyone however high or low he may be in social strata. The court
cannot assist that person to achieve that object.
 The court held that Hippocratic Oath taken by medical men at time of
entering profession is not enforceable in the court of law as it lacks statuary
force.
Mr. X v. Hospital z overruled by Mr. X v.
Hospital z
 This judgement later went for clarification where the supreme Court held
that the judges had erred in their judgement by deciding on the matters
which were irrelevant to the case.
 The judgement hold good as far as the disclosure by the doctor and the
right of fiance to know are concerned.
 The Court unheld the decision On these two matters and disregarded the
judge’s decision on Everything else.
 The judge’s hold that the HIV patient’s right to marriage is not suspended.
They can marry with the informed consent of the other spouse.
Thank you