Right to receive information under Article 19 (1) a.

The Madras High Court has recently noted that a hospital’s failure to provide information pertaining to the treatment given to a patient would amount to professional misconduct and would result in tortious liability as it infringes on the patient’s right.”Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution includes within its sweep the right to receive information. The right to know is the species of the right to speech and expression provided by Article 19(1) (a) of the constitution of India. A citizen has a fundamental right to access information. It is the duty of the state to protect the fundamental rightMadras the High Court recently delivered the judgement as follows:

All hospitals, Government or private are liable to maintain medical records and provide the same to the patient or their attendants within 72 hours of a request, the Court added.

The Madras High Court recently observed that government hospitals withholding information from their patients or attendants would amount to professional misconduct and result in tortious liability. [Jothi vs The State and Ors.]

Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution includes the right to receive information and, obviously, a patient is entitled to invoke this right.

The Court further observed that in any event, in view of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, government hospitals can no longer withhold information from patients or their attendants.

“Withholding would amount to professional misconduct and result in tortious liability as it constitutes an infringement of the patient’s rights. All hospitals, whether Government or private are liable to maintain the medical records and provide the same to the patient or their attendants within 72 hours of the request and failure to do so constitutes an infringement of the patient’s right,” the Court emphasized.

The Court was hearing a plea by a woman seeking action against officials of a government hospital for medical negligence. She also sought compensation to the tune of ₹15 lakhs.

The woman told the Court that in 2014, she gave birth to a female child after being admitted to a government hospital in Mudukulathur. Since the baby developed asphyxia, both mother and child were referred to another government hospital in Paramakudi and later to another one in Madurai, where the baby, unfortunately, passed away.

She argued that the baby’s death resulted from medical negligence. Moreover, she claimed that the baby had been stillborn. However, in order to prevent any controversy, she and the baby were sent to different hospitals, the Court was told.

The woman also asserted that if a cesarean operation had been performed, the baby could have been saved. It was further stated that despite requesting the medical records, they were withheld.

On the other hand, Special Government Pleader (SGP) D Gandhiraj and the counsel for the doctor and nurse on duty denied all the allegations made by the woman and prayed for the dismissal of the case.

The Court noted at the outset that it did not make a difference if the doctor is working in a government or a private hospital as the same duty of care is expected wherever they serve.

“The professional standards cannot be lowered. There has been a paradigm shift worldwide. Patients are now widely regarded as persons holding rights, rather than as the passive recipients of the care of the medical profession vide Montgomery V Lanarkshire Health Board, “ it added.

Further, since it is now a digital age, it should no more be difficult to store all information digitally.

A patient is entitled to be furnished all records related to their treatment and this right can be effectuated only if information is stored digitally, the Court said.

However, the Court found no merit in the woman’s claim that her baby was stillborn and could have been saved if a caesarean operation was performed. The Court explained that every gynaecologist’s endeavour would be to deliver the baby normally and that the doctor could not be blamed merely because of an untoward outcome.

All the same, the judge observed that if ventilator support had been available at the hospital where the child was delivered, the woman and her child would not have been forced to travel long distances to other hospitals.

Further, he noted that the hospital’s failure to furnish information did constitute an infringement of the woman’s right. The Court also noted that the hospital management’s failure to furnish the patient’s information infringed on her right. Accordingly, the Court held that the woman was entitled to a compensation of 75,000.