Right to Privacy Case Law Mr. X vs. Hospital Z

Right to Privacy Case Law

In this Right to Privacy Case Law, Mr. X right to privacy and Hospital Z right to lead a healthy life of other person were examined. Basically it was a clash between Right to privacy vs Right to lead healthy life. Which right was prevailed, let’s check it out.

Right to Privacy Case Law: Mr. x vs. Hospital Z:

Fact of the case:

In this case, a person named X was about to marry and he was diagnosed with AIDS and found HIV positive in hospital Z. The doctor who took his test relieved this information to his fiance but to which his marriage was cancelled.

Mr. X claimed damages and filed a case against Hospital Z as it breaches his right to privacy and it’s the duty of the hospital to keep such report private. But the doctor and the hospital breaches this duty and so held be liable according to Mr. X.

The appellant then approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for damages against the respondent, on the ground that the information which was required to be kept secret under Medical ethics was disclosed illegally. Also, it is against the International Code of Medical Ethics, Professional Ethics.

Important Sections Involved:

Section 13(i)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Grounds for Divorce – Venereal Disease

According to this section, a petitioner (spouse seeking divorce) can file for divorce if the respondent (other spouse) is suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form. The inclusion of this ground recognizes the importance of health and well-being in a marital relationship, and the provision allows for the dissolution of the marriage if one party is afflicted with a sexually transmitted disease.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: is a fundamental right that guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. It states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.”

Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code deals with negligent acts that are likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life. It is a legal provision that addresses situations where individuals, through their negligent actions, may cause the spread of diseases that are considered hazardous and potentially life-threatening.

Question Invovled:

there is a clash of two fundamental rights, as in the instant case, namely, the appellant’s right to privacy as a part of right to life and other person’s right to lead a healthy life which is her fundamental right u/a 21

Court Decision:

Court dismissed Mr. X plea to give damages and held that the right which was more towards public interest. The fianceé’s right to life should be protected over the Right to Privacy of HIV patient.The court, hence, held that the doctor had done no wrong in disclosing the HIV positive status to the fiance.