MR. X VS.

HOSPITAL Z

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 which was provisionally
diagnosed as Aortic Anuerisrn was advised to go to the 'Z' Hospital at
Madras and the appellant was directed by the Government of Nagaland
to accompany the said patient to Madras for treatment .
 On June 1, 1995 the appellant and one Yehozhe who was the driver of
Itokhu Yepthomi were asked to donate blood. Their blood samples were
taken.
 The Appellants blood was to be transfused to another and therefore a
sample thereof was taken at 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 is 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 Raised Before the 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 Arguments:-

 Principle of “duty of care” is applicable which includes the duty to

maintain confidentiality. It has origin in the Hippocratic Oath. On the
basis of the same, the International Code of Medical Ethics has laid
down that: – “A physician shall preserve absolute confidentiality on all
he knows about his patient even after his patient has died.”
 Indian Medical Council Act, under Sec 20A r/w sec 33 provides that: “Do
not disclose the secrets of a patient that have been learnt in the exercise
of your profession. Those may be disclosed only in a Court of Law under
orders of the presiding judge.” .
 The doctor’s duty to maintain secrecy has a corelative right vested in the
patient that whatever has come to the knowledge of the Doctor would
not be divulged. A doctor cannot disclose to a person any information
regarding his patient which he has gathered in the course of treatment
 nor can the doctor disclose to anyone else the mode of treatment or the
advice given by him to the patient.
 Right to privacy means ‘right to be let alone’. The difference between
the right to privacy and the right to confidentiality is that the latter is
available only against a person to whom you have disclosed such
information and is more of a duty whereas the right to privacy is a right
in rem.
 . Right of Privacy may, arise out of a particular specific relationship.
Doctor-patient relationship, though basically commercial, is,
professionally, a matter of confidence: and, therefore, Doctors are
morally and ethically bound to maintain confidentiality.
 . Public disclosure of even true private facts may amount to an invasion
of the Right of Privacy which may sometimes lead to the clash of one
person’s “right to be let alone” with another person’s right to be
informed. Such may disturb a person’s tranquillity and may generate
many complexes in him and may even lead to psychological problems

Respondent Arguments:-

 Every Right has a co- relative Duty and every Duty has a co-relative
Right. But the rule is not absolute. It is subject to certain
exceptions.
 Hippocratic Oath is not enforceable and the Code of Professional
Conduct made by the Medical Council of contains an exception
that the information may be disclosed in a court of law under the
orders of the Presiding Judge.
 Parallel is drawn with English law which provides that the
exceptions permit: disclosure with the consent, or in the best
interests, of the patient, in compliance with a court order or other
legally enforceable duty and, in very limited circumstances, where
the public interest so requires
 Public interest, would override the duty of confidentiality,
particularly where there, is an immediate or future health risk to
others. The proposed marriage carried with it the health risk to an
identifiable person who had to be protected from being infected
with the communicable disease from which the appellant
suffered, The right to confidentiality is not enforceable in the
present situation.
 . Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Right which
defines this right as follows,:
  (1) “Every one has the. right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.
 (2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law
and is necessary in democratic society in the interests of national
security, public safety or the economic well being of the country,
for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of 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. ‘a’ 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.
• Another question raised was whether the appellant could be charged
under Section-269 and Section-270 of IPC which talks about unlawfully,
negligently or maliciously spreading of a disease.
• The court’s holding, that, appellant would have committed this crime if
he had remained silent about his HIV status and married his fiancée and
the doctor would have been participant criminals if he hadn’t disclosed
the information to appellant’s fiancée.
• The court here has equated the appellant’s silence to him being
negligent by not fulfilling his duty of disclosing the information that
would vitiate his spouse’s consent to marriage. The court’s reasoning
seems to be based on two things
1. Negligence arises where there is a duty to take care and that duty has
been breached.
2. Consent to marriage should not be vitiated by fraud or
misrepresentation.
Judgement:-
 In deciding the first issue, 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 on the first count.
 In deciding the second issue, the Court held that in the event of a
conflict between the Appellants fundamental right to privacy and
Ms A's 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 on the second count as well.
 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 the Indian Penal Code.
 The court held that AIDS is the product of undisciplined 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 the Hippocratic Oath taken by medical men
at time of entering profession is not enforceable in the Court of
law as it lacks statutory force
 The Court further held that The Appellants right to marry was
suspended until complete cure of the Appellants dreadful disease.
The Court 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
Mr. X vs. Hospital Z overruled by Mr. X vs.
Hospital Z
This judgment later went for clarification2 where the Supreme Court
held that the judges had erred in their judgment by deciding on the
matters which were irrelevant to the case.

The judgment holds good as far as the disclosure by the doctor and the
right of fianceé to know are concerned.

The court upheld the decision on these two matters and disregarded
the Judge’s decision on everything else.

Conclusion Derived from the Judgement

Hence, what can be understood from the judgment is that the HIV
AIDS patient’s right to marriage is not suspended. They can marry with
We direct the office shall not treat this as a writ petition filed under
Article 32, but shall register it separately as an IA for
clarification/directions in C.A. No. 4641/1998.

Notice of this IA returnable within two weeks shall be issued to

National Aids Control Organisation. Union of India and Indian Medical
Association which is already represented in IA Nos. 2-3. Notice shall
also go to Medical Council of India. Dasti service is permitted in
addition."
X vs. Hospital Z (10.12.2002 - SC) : MANU/SC/1121/2002the
informed consent of the other spouse.