Skip to main content

Patients have right to their medical records: CIC

Patients have a right to get their medical records from hospitals, both public and private, Central Information Commission has held while ordering disclosure of information to a former RAW official. 

Nisha Priya Bhatia, a former official of country's snooping agency Research and Analysis Wing, sought her medical records from Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences where she was admitted on the orders of Delhi High Court. 

These records were refused to her as the Institute cited section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act which allows an authority to withhold information which would impede an investigation.

Rejecting the contention, Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said patients have a right to their medical records which is rooted in Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and respondent hospitals have a duty to provide it. 

He said information commissions can enforce this right to information of patients against both Government and Private hospitals, whether they are public authorities or not, as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The Commissioner said hospitals have duty to provide the same under Right to Information Act, 2005, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Medical Council Act, 1956 and world medical ethics read with Constitutional rights. 

Bhatia had alleged before the Commission that her superiors got antagonised against her for no reason, started withdrawing her privileges as an officer, gradually and ultimately her chair was also removed leaving her with no place to sit and work. 

She alleged that a "deliberate conspiracy" and attempt to depict her as mentally sick person just because she had filed complaints against her superiors. 

"The background stated suggests that she is in dire need of the medical records to tell the world that she was not mentally sick but fit and also for defending her case before the appropriate forum," Acharyulu noted.

Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/patients-have-right-to-their-medical-records-cic_949816.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...