MR. "X" versus HOSPITAL "Z"

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 10-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

MR. "X" 
v. 
HOSPITAL "Z" 
DECEMBER I 0, 2002 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, P. VENKATARAMA REDD! AND 
ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Medical Ethics-Right to privacy: 
A 
B 
P.erson suffering from AIDS/HIV(+ )-Disclosure of the factum of disease C 
to the relatives of fiancee by the hospital authority-Complaint against Hospital 
dismissed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-S.L.P. 
disposed of by Supreme Court without hearing any party upholding the order 
of Commission-The Court made certain observationi; touching other aspects-
Writ petition filed for setting aside the judgment-Converting into I.A. the D 
Court held, such observations unrelated to the issue that arose except to the 
extent of holding that appellant's right was not affected in any manner in 
revealing his HIV(+) status to the relative of his fiancee-Hence unnecessary-
Constitution of India, Articles 21, 32. 
Appellant in main appeal who was a medical practitioner was E 
engaged to be married. In connection with donation of blood to his relative 
his blood sample was tested in the respondent-hospital. He was found 
suffering from HIV (+), and the hospital authorities disclosed the fact 
about his suffering from AIDS to the relative of his fiancee, whereby the 
appellant was socially ostracised and the proposed marriage was called 
off. Aggrieved, appellant filed petition before Consumer Disputes 
Redressal Commission for relief which was dismissed with an observation 
that the appellant has to seek remedy in a Civil Court. Appellant filed an 
S.L.P. which was disposed of by the Court without issuance of notice to 
F 
any party and without hearing any person or organisation, but several 
findings were given by this Court with particular reference to "suspended O 
right to marry" and also on the question whether the patient who marries 
commits an offence under Sections 269 and 270 !PC [19981 8 sec 296. 
Appellant again approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition for setting 
aside the judgment; the petition was ordered to be treated as an I.A. for 
clarification of earlier order. In substance the petitioner wanted the Court H 
661 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A to clarify that there is no bar for the marriage if the healthy spouse 
consents to marry in spite of being made aware of the fact that the other 
spouse is suffering from the said disease. 
Disposing of the I.A., the Court 
B 
HELD: It is unnecessary to examine these matters in any detail 
inasmuch as this Court had rested its earlier 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 nee.d for this Court to go further and declare 
C 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 
D matter were unnecessary, particularly when there was no consideration 
of the matter after notice to all the parties concerned. The observations 
made earlier by this Court, except to the extent of holding that the 
appellant's right was not affected in any manner in revealing his HIV 
positive status to the relatives of his fiancee, are uncalled for. (665-D-G] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appe_al LA. Nos. 2, 3, 
F 
5, 6, 7, and 9 of 2000. 
IN 
Civil Appeal No. 4641 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.1998 of the National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in D.P. No. 88 of 1998. 
Kirit Raval, Solicitor General, Jayant Das, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Anand 
Grover, S. Ravindra Bhat, Naveen R. Nath, Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Mr. Hetu 
G Arora, Shiv Kr. Suri, Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Sumita Das, S. Santhanan 
Swaminandhan, Maninder Singh, A. Mariarputham, Ankur Talwar, Ms. 
Pratibha, M. Singh, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ajit Pudussery, K.C. Ranjeet, E.C. 
Vidya Sagar, S. Murlidhar, Ms. Flavia Agies, Ms. V. Mohana, Ms. Veena 
Gowda, Dayan Krishnan, Trideep Pais and Shreyas Jayasinha for the appearing 
H parties .. 
' . 
' 
MR. "'X"' "·HOSPITAL ··z·· [S. RAJENDRA BABU. J.] 
663 
Tnc Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
RAJENDRA BABU, J

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.