Re: Question: Can patient info or medical records be provided to a third party?

July 1, 2011

In a recent decision by CIC information of patients in clinical trials can not be given under RTI.

On 1 Jul 2011 17:50, " Geer M. Ishaq " <ishaqgeer@...> wrote:> Dear Members:> Here is a question for you to answer. Can a hospital or a healthcare provider divulge patient info or medical records to a third party on request vide Right to Information Act?

> > With Regards> Dr. Geer M. Ishaq> Sr. Assistant Professor> Dept. of Pharmaceutical Sciences> University of Kashmir> Srinagar-190006 (J & K)> Ph: 09906673100> http://www.sites.google.com/site/ishaqgeer

July 1, 2011

Dear Pankaj jain:

Agreed. But what if the information/records other than those of clinical trials

pertaining to some patient under routine circumstances is sought by a third

party under RTI from the hospital? Can the hospital make it available?

With Regards

Dr Geer M Ishaq

> > Dear Members:

> > Here is a question for you to answer. Can a hospital or a healthcare

> provider divulge patient info or medical records to a third party on request

> vide Right to Information Act?

> >

> > With Regards

> > Dr. Geer M. Ishaq

> > Sr. Assistant Professor

> > Dept. of Pharmaceutical Sciences

> > University of Kashmir

> > Srinagar-190006 (J & K)

> > Ph: 09906673100

> > http://www.sites.google.com/site/ishaqgeer

>

July 1, 2011

Dear Members,I am Dr JG Buch from PDU (Govt) Medical College, Rajkot and I have worked for several years as PIO (Public Information Officer) of my institute since implementation of RTI act in 2005. Although information regarding a patient is handled by PIO of the hospital, I have faced several similar situations.Information of a patient CANNOT be given to 'third' party under any circumstances, even if asked under RTI. Patient's information is always to be treated as confidential is can be denied. I have observed that discussion on this topic is confusing Rights of the Patients with the RTI act. The two issues are different.- Dr. Buchnetrum From: ishaqgeer@...Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:05:34 +0000Subject: Re: Question: Can patient info or medical records be provided to a third party?

Dear Pankaj jain:

Agreed. But what if the information/records other than those of clinical trials pertaining to some patient under routine circumstances is sought by a third party under RTI from the hospital? Can the hospital make it available?

With Regards

Dr Geer M Ishaq

> > Dear Members:

> > Here is a question for you to answer. Can a hospital or a healthcare

> provider divulge patient info or medical records to a third party on request

> vide Right to Information Act?

> >

> > With Regards

> > Dr. Geer M. Ishaq

> > Sr. Assistant Professor

> > Dept. of Pharmaceutical Sciences

> > University of Kashmir

> > Srinagar-190006 (J & K)

> > Ph: 09906673100

> > http://www.sites.google.com/site/ishaqgeer

>

July 1, 2011

Respected Dr J G Buch:

Pleasure to have your views on this topic Sir. You are most welcome. With due regards and utmost respect, I humbly beg to differ with your viewpoint Sir that "information of a patient CANNOT be given to 'third' party under any circumstances". I also do not agree with your observation that "discussion on this topic is confusing rights of the patients with the RTI Act". My explanation is as under:

You have rightly mentioned that patient's information is always to be treated as confidential. Among the first few posts on this topic I have mentioned about a patient's right to privacy and secrecy. RTI Act exclusively deals with right to information of a patient, no doubt, but the question is when can a patient exercise his right to information, obviously only when he is aware of his other rights guaranteed to him by the law of the land. That is why a few posts about the general healthcare rights of patients other than their right to information have been made to increase awareness about the same and guide the audience as to when and under what circumstances provisions of RTI Act can be invoked by a patient. I consider the worthy members of this forum learned and mature enough to distinguish between the two.

Regarding your former comment, that information cannot be given to a third party under any circumstances, I wish to submit that under routine circumstances, yes, honouring privacy and secrecy of patient information, it cannot be given, but there are exceptions to this provision Sir. One of them being that if the larger public interest is better served by disclosure of information, with the consent of the patient concerned, information can be given to a third party. Furthermore under section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, any information that can be revealed to the parliament or the state legislature cannot be denied to the public.

To substantiate my viewpoint I cite the landmark decision in the historical case of Shailesh Gandhi V/s JJ Hospital below, in which case four member bench of SIC, Maharashtra ordered disclosure of information pertaining to ex-minister Surupsinh Naik to RTI activist Shailash Gandhi on the above-mentioned grounds. Decision was challenged in Bombay High Court by the patient Surupsinh Naik which upheld the decision of SIC and ruled that â€œMedical records of a patient, especially of a convict who avails of treatment at a government hospital, is open for public scrutiny. The Court further said : â€œIn this case considering that the petitioner was convicted for contempt and was sent to jail and thereafter spent a large part of his prison term in hospital, the right of the public to be informed would normally outweigh the right of the petitioner (Naik) to hold on to his medical recordsâ€

Your further participation and comments in this discussion are deeply solicited Sir. Please have a look at the case report cited below.

With Kind Regards

Dr. Geer M. Ishaq

Sr. Assistant Professor

Dept. of Pharmaceutical Sciences

University of Kashmir

Srinagar-190006 (J & K)

Ph: 09906673100

http://www.sites.google.com/site/ishaqgeer

Disclosure of medical records of an individual :

In this article I report on an interesting order of the State Information Commission, Maharashtra. It is interesting because for the first time in Maharashtra, the appeal is heard by four State Information Commissioners including the Chief Information Commissioner and the order is signed by 4 SICs.

An application was made by Shri Shailesh Gandhi, RTI Activist, on 27-5-2006 u/s.6 of the RTI Act to the PIO of J.J. Hospital, seeking copies of certain medical reports pertaining to Shri Surupsinh Naik, Ex. Minister during his hospitalisation in J.J. Hospital. Mr. Gandhi neither received the information requested from the PIO, nor from the first Appellate Officer. Hence the second appeal u/s.19(3) of RTI Act to the Commission. The Chief Information Commissioner heard the appeal on 27th &

29th September 2006, but did not pass any order. Again the matter was heard by a Full Bench of the Commission on 5-3-2007 when the Dean and Superintendent of J.J. Hospital and the applicant were present.

Facts and background of the case are :

Shri Surupsinh Naik was imprisoned by the order of Supreme Court for contempt of Court. While undergoing imprisonment, he was transferred to J.J. Hospital because of his ill-health. The applicant wanted the medical reports including ECG and other reports pertaining to Shri Surupsinh Naik during his stay in J.J. Hospital and at the time of his discharge. The Dean of the J.J. Hospital

during his argument gave the extract from the book titled â€˜The Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicologyâ€™ by Dr. K. S. Narayan Reddy. The extract states â€œthat the medical records of a patient (in-patient or out-patient) should not be given to any person without the consent of the patient. The police do not have a right to demand medical records except when there is statutory provision for such requisitions. The patientâ€™s record cannot be used in educational or diagnostic conferences or clinics or for publications, without the patientâ€™s consent.â€ The Medical Authorities of J.J. Hospital having regard to the provision of S. 11 under the RTI Act did seek the consent from Shri Surupsinh Naik to give the intended information on 3rd July 2006. However, there had been no response from his side.

This is a case where two contradictory points â€” right to privacy vis-Ã -vis right to know â€” came for consideration and needed to be weighed to arrive at a decision.

The argument on behalf of the respondents was that the reports of medical examinations are quite personal to the individual and this privacy has to be respected. The hospital authorities are also governed by the ethics of their professions. The applicant argued that disclosing these records would clear doubt in the mind of public whether the stay of Shri Naik in the hospital instead of in the prison was justified or otherwise.

The four-member Bench recorded its reasons in the order and ruled as under :

â€œPeople generally feel that those in high places have money power and when imprisoned they get shifted to hospitals under one pretext or the other and spend their jail term in the hospitals. However, there could be genuine requirement also for the imprisoned person for specialised medical supervision. To remove the veil of secrecy and let people know the actual position in this regard, we feel, would do justice to all the parties concerned, jail authorities, medical authorities at J.J. Hospital and also to Shri Surupsinh Naik who has not responded to the request of consent to give this

information. We think that larger public interest would be better served by disclosure of information, rather than continuing doubts in the public mind.â€

â€œOne more point to be considered is that u/s.8(j), the proviso contemplates that the information which could be revealed to State Legislature, such information should not be denied to the public. The PIO admits that the information in question could not be denied to the Legislature. Therefore, we think it would be unjustified to deny this information to the applicant. We, therefore, are of unanimous opinion that the information asked by Shri Shailesh Gandhi should be given to him. We only expect that information thus received will be used in a responsible mannerâ€.

Order :

Appeal is allowed. PIO of J.J. Hospital is directed to provide the asked information to Shri Shailesh Gandhi the applicant, within a period of seven days free of cost.

This is like a Full Bench decision of Income-tax Tribunals having higher weightage. This is also a landmark decision on a very sensitive exemption clause (j) of S. 8(1) of the RTI Act which reads as under :

(j) information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

The above Order is challenged by Mr. Naik in a petition filed in Bombay High Court. The Court asked J.J. Hospital to send the relevant records to the Court which are delivered. In a landmark Order, the Bombay High Court has ruled that â€œMedical records of a patient, especially of a convict who avails of treatment at a government hospital, is open for public scrutiny. The Court further said :

â€œIn this case considering that the petitioner was convicted for contempt and was sent to jail and thereafter spent a large part of his prison term in hospital, the right of the public to be informed would normally outweigh the right of the petitioner (Naik) to hold on to his medical recordsâ€

From: Dr.J.G. Buch <drjgbuch@...>netrum Sent: Friday, 1 July 2011 8:13 PMSubject: RE: Re: Question: Can patient info or medical records be provided to a third party?

Dear Members,I am Dr JG Buch from PDU (Govt) Medical College, Rajkot and I have worked for several years as PIO (Public Information Officer) of my institute since implementation of RTI act in 2005. Although information regarding a patient is handled by PIO of the hospital, I have faced several similar situations.Information of a patient CANNOT be given to 'third' party under any circumstances, even if asked under RTI. Patient's information is always to be treated as confidential is can be denied. I have observed that discussion on this topic is confusing Rights of the Patients with the RTI act. The two issues are different.- Dr. Buch

netrum From: ishaqgeer@...Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:05:34 +0000Subject: Re: Question: Can patient info or medical records be provided to a third party?

Dear Pankaj jain:Agreed. But what if the information/records other than those of clinical trials pertaining to some patient under routine circumstances is sought by a third party under RTI from the hospital? Can the hospital make it available?With RegardsDr Geer M Ishaq > > Dear Members:> > Here is a question for you to answer. Can a hospital or a healthcare> provider divulge patient info or medical records to a third party on request> vide Right to Information Act?> >> >

With Regards> > Dr. Geer M. Ishaq> > Sr. Assistant Professor> > Dept. of Pharmaceutical Sciences> > University of Kashmir> > Srinagar-190006 (J & K)> > Ph: 09906673100> > http://www.sites.google.com/site/ishaqgeer>

July 1, 2011

I think that too cant be provided as

1. It is personal information

2. Doctor patient relation is fiduciary in nature.

RTI is for information in public interest not invasion of privacy.

Regards,

Dr. Pankaj Jain

On 1 Jul 2011 19:35, " ishaqgeer " <ishaqgeer@...> wrote:

July 1, 2011

Thank you Dr Geer for useful piece of information with documentary support.As PIO, I would still refuse to divulge personal information to third party (at the risk of inviting cash penalty) and would wait for specific order by the Court for a particular request, because once the information is released and becomes public it can do irreversible damage to the person concerned. Decisions of the Courts can also vary from case to case.Thanks.Dr. Buchnetrum From: ishaqgeer@...Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:07:51 +0530Subject: Re: Re: Question: Can patient info or medical records be provided to a third party?

Respected Dr J G Buch:

Pleasure to have your views on this topic Sir. You are most welcome. With due regards and utmost respect, I humbly beg to differ with your viewpoint Sir that "information of a patient CANNOT be given to 'third' party under any circumstances". I also do not agree with your observation that "discussion on this topic is confusing rights of the patients with the RTI Act". My explanation is as under:

You have rightly mentioned that patient's information is always to be treated as confidential. Among the first few posts on this topic I have mentioned about a patient's right to privacy and secrecy. RTI Act exclusively deals with right to information of a patient, no doubt, but the question is when can a patient exercise his right to information, obviously only when he is aware of his other rights guaranteed to him by the law of the land. That is why a few posts about the general healthcare rights of patients other than their right to information have been made to increase awareness about the same and guide the audience as to when and under what circumstances provisions of RTI Act can be invoked by a patient. I consider the worthy members of this forum learned and mature enough to distinguish between the two.

Regarding your former comment, that information cannot be given to a third party under any circumstances, I wish to submit that under routine circumstances, yes, honouring privacy and secrecy of patient information, it cannot be given, but there are exceptions to this provision Sir. One of them being that if the larger public interest is better served by disclosure of information, with the consent of the patient concerned, information can be given to a third party. Furthermore under section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, any information that can be revealed to the parliament or the state legislature cannot be denied to the public.

To substantiate my viewpoint I cite the landmark decision in the historical case of Shailesh Gandhi V/s JJ Hospital below, in which case four member bench of SIC, Maharashtra ordered disclosure of information pertaining to ex-minister Surupsinh Naik to RTI activist Shailash Gandhi on the above-mentioned grounds. Decision was challenged in Bombay High Court by the patient Surupsinh Naik which upheld the decision of SIC and ruled that “Medical records of a patient, especially of a convict who avails of treatment at a government hospital, is open for public scrutiny. The Court further said : “In this case considering that the petitioner was convicted for contempt and was sent to jail and thereafter spent a large part of his prison term in hospital, the right of the public to be informed would normally outweigh the right of the petitioner (Naik) to hold on to his medical records”

Your further participation and comments in this discussion are deeply solicited Sir. Please have a look at the case report cited below.

With Kind Regards

Dr. Geer M. Ishaq

Sr. Assistant Professor

Dept. of Pharmaceutical Sciences

University of Kashmir

Srinagar-190006 (J & K)

Ph: 09906673100

http://www.sites.google.com/site/ishaqgeer

Disclosure of medical records of an individual :

In this article I report on an interesting order of the State Information Commission, Maharashtra. It is interesting because for the first time in Maharashtra, the appeal is heard by four State Information Commissioners including the Chief Information Commissioner and the order is signed by 4 SICs.

An application was made by Shri Shailesh Gandhi, RTI Activist, on 27-5-2006 u/s.6 of the RTI Act to the PIO of J.J. Hospital, seeking copies of certain medical reports pertaining to Shri Surupsinh Naik, Ex. Minister during his hospitalisation in J.J. Hospital. Mr. Gandhi neither received the information requested from the PIO, nor from the first Appellate Officer. Hence the second appeal u/s.19(3) of RTI Act to the Commission. The Chief Information Commissioner heard the appeal on 27th &

29th September 2006, but did not pass any order. Again the matter was heard by a Full Bench of the Commission on 5-3-2007 when the Dean and Superintendent of J.J. Hospital and the applicant were present.

Facts and background of the case are :

Shri Surupsinh Naik was imprisoned by the order of Supreme Court for contempt of Court. While undergoing imprisonment, he was transferred to J.J. Hospital because of his ill-health. The applicant wanted the medical reports including ECG and other reports pertaining to Shri Surupsinh Naik during his stay in J.J. Hospital and at the time of his discharge. The Dean of the J.J. Hospital

during his argument gave the extract from the book titled ‘The Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology’ by Dr. K. S. Narayan Reddy. The extract states “that the medical records of a patient (in-patient or out-patient) should not be given to any person without the consent of the patient. The police do not have a right to demand medical records except when there is statutory provision for such requisitions. The patient’s record cannot be used in educational or diagnostic conferences or clinics or for publications, without the patient’s consent.” The Medical Authorities of J.J. Hospital having regard to the provision of S. 11 under the RTI Act did seek the consent from Shri Surupsinh Naik to give the intended information on 3rd July 2006. However, there had been no response from his side.

This is a case where two contradictory points — right to privacy vis-à-vis right to know — came for consideration and needed to be weighed to arrive at a decision.

The argument on behalf of the respondents was that the reports of medical examinations are quite personal to the individual and this privacy has to be respected. The hospital authorities are also governed by the ethics of their professions. The applicant argued that disclosing these records would clear doubt in the mind of public whether the stay of Shri Naik in the hospital instead of in the prison was justified or otherwise.

The four-member Bench recorded its reasons in the order and ruled as under :

“People generally feel that those in high places have money power and when imprisoned they get shifted to hospitals under one pretext or the other and spend their jail term in the hospitals. However, there could be genuine requirement also for the imprisoned person for specialised medical supervision. To remove the veil of secrecy and let people know the actual position in this regard, we feel, would do justice to all the parties concerned, jail authorities, medical authorities at J.J. Hospital and also to Shri Surupsinh Naik who has not responded to the request of consent to give this

information. We think that larger public interest would be better served by disclosure of information, rather than continuing doubts in the public mind.”

“One more point to be considered is that u/s.8(j), the proviso contemplates that the information which could be revealed to State Legislature, such information should not be denied to the public. The PIO admits that the information in question could not be denied to the Legislature. Therefore, we think it would be unjustified to deny this information to the applicant. We, therefore, are of unanimous opinion that the information asked by Shri Shailesh Gandhi should be given to him. We only expect that information thus received will be used in a responsible manner”.

Order :

Appeal is allowed. PIO of J.J. Hospital is directed to provide the asked information to Shri Shailesh Gandhi the applicant, within a period of seven days free of cost.

This is like a Full Bench decision of Income-tax Tribunals having higher weightage. This is also a landmark decision on a very sensitive exemption clause (j) of S. 8(1) of the RTI Act which reads as under :

(j) information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

The above Order is challenged by Mr. Naik in a petition filed in Bombay High Court. The Court asked J.J. Hospital to send the relevant records to the Court which are delivered. In a landmark Order, the Bombay High Court has ruled that “Medical records of a patient, especially of a convict who avails of treatment at a government hospital, is open for public scrutiny. The Court further said :

“In this case considering that the petitioner was convicted for contempt and was sent to jail and thereafter spent a large part of his prison term in hospital, the right of the public to be informed would normally outweigh the right of the petitioner (Naik) to hold on to his medical records”

From: Dr.J.G. Buch <drjgbuch@...>netrum Sent: Friday, 1 July 2011 8:13 PMSubject: RE: Re: Question: Can patient info or medical records be provided to a third party?

Dear Members,I am Dr JG Buch from PDU (Govt) Medical College, Rajkot and I have worked for several years as PIO (Public Information Officer) of my institute since implementation of RTI act in 2005. Although information regarding a patient is handled by PIO of the hospital, I have faced several similar situations.Information of a patient CANNOT be given to 'third' party under any circumstances, even if asked under RTI. Patient's information is always to be treated as confidential is can be denied. I have observed that discussion on this topic is confusing Rights of the Patients with the RTI act. The two issues are different.- Dr. Buch

netrum From: ishaqgeer@...Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:05:34 +0000Subject: Re: Question: Can patient info or medical records be provided to a third party?

Dear Pankaj jain:Agreed. But what if the information/records other than those of clinical trials pertaining to some patient under routine circumstances is sought by a third party under RTI from the hospital? Can the hospital make it available?With RegardsDr Geer M Ishaq > > Dear Members:> > Here is a question for you to answer. Can a hospital or a healthcare> provider divulge patient info or medical records to a third party on request> vide Right to Information Act?> >> >

With Regards> > Dr. Geer M. Ishaq> > Sr. Assistant Professor> > Dept. of Pharmaceutical Sciences> > University of Kashmir> > Srinagar-190006 (J & K)> > Ph: 09906673100> > http://www.sites.google.com/site/ishaqgeer>

July 1, 2011

Dear All

Greeting from Ram Charitra Sah, CEPHED, Nepal

Thank you for initiating important discussion over netrum network. Being health and environment activist, I think the right to information for each and individual is prime factor here. It is not a matter that who will receive it. The information one received need to be used for intended purpose, otherwise it does not have any value.

The major things should be access to information should be made available in the format and language they understand, at the time they need . So what iff, if information given to a patient who can not understand and read does not serve their need and hence even medical record kind of documents should be given to the third party who will ask on behalf of the patient in good faith.

People access to right can be ensured by ensuring three things : Access to Information; Access for participation; and Access to justice as per the provision of the Rio Principle 10. Accordingly most of the countries ,in fact even developing countries like ours have made constitutional provision of the Right to information as well as have enacted specific Right to Information Act. All these have clear provision of asking any information held with public entities with some specific exception like national security and personal secrecy as well as security. In other normal cases, any body can ask for any information held with public entities. No matter it is on their personal behalf and/or on someone behalf. I think these kind of provisions in our respective RTI Act are sufficient to end the discussion where the information ( e.g medical record) should be given to the third party or not. In my openion, It should be

given.

Even in the age of increasing medical negligence cases happening in our region , it is important to have access to even medical record to anyone who is intended to help any such victim / patients.

Is there is any things other than personal secrecy if any in the medical record need to be hide or need not to be disclosed?

Ram Charitra Sah

Executive Director / Environment Scientist

CEPHED

Nepal

From: Dr.J.G. Buch <drjgbuch@...>Subject: RE: Re: Question: Can patient info or medical records be provided to a third party?"Netrum" <netrum >Received: Friday, 1 July, 2011, 6:28 PM

Thank you Dr Geer for useful piece of information with documentary support.As PIO, I would still refuse to divulge personal information to third party (at the risk of inviting cash penalty) and would wait for specific order by the Court for a particular request, because once the information is released and becomes public it can do irreversible damage to the person concerned. Decisions of the Courts can also vary from case to case.Thanks.Dr. Buch

netrum From: ishaqgeer@...Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:07:51 +0530Subject: Re: Re: Question: Can patient info or medical records be provided to a third party?

Respected Dr J G Buch:

Pleasure to have your views on this topic Sir. You are most welcome. With due regards and utmost respect, I humbly beg to differ with your viewpoint Sir that "information of a patient CANNOT be given to 'third' party under any circumstances". I also do not agree with your observation that "discussion on this topic is confusing rights of the patients with the RTI Act". My explanation is as under:

You have rightly mentioned that patient's information is always to be treated as confidential. Among the first few posts on this topic I have mentioned about a patient's right to privacy and secrecy. RTI Act exclusively deals with right to information of a patient, no doubt, but the question is when can a patient exercise his right to information, obviously only when he is aware of his other rights guaranteed to him by the law of the land. That is why a few posts about the general healthcare rights of patients other than their right to information have been made to increase awareness about the same and guide the audience as to when and under what circumstances provisions of RTI Act can be invoked by a patient. I consider the worthy members of this forum learned and mature enough to distinguish between the two.

Regarding your former comment, that information cannot be given to a third party under any circumstances, I wish to submit that under routine circumstances, yes, honouring privacy and secrecy of patient information, it cannot be given, but there are exceptions to this provision Sir. One of them being that if the larger public interest is better served by disclosure of information, with the consent of the patient concerned, information can be given to a third party. Furthermore under section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, any information that can be revealed to the parliament or the state legislature cannot be denied to the public.

To substantiate my viewpoint I cite the landmark decision in the historical case of Shailesh Gandhi V/s JJ Hospital below, in which case four member bench of SIC, Maharashtra ordered disclosure of information pertaining to ex-minister Surupsinh Naik to RTI activist Shailash Gandhi on the above-mentioned grounds. Decision was challenged in Bombay High Court by the patient Surupsinh Naik which upheld the decision of SIC and ruled that â€œMedical records of a patient, especially of a convict who avails of treatment at a government hospital, is open for public scrutiny. The Court further said : â€œIn this case considering that the petitioner was convicted for contempt and was sent to jail and thereafter spent a

large part of his prison term in hospital, the right of the public to be informed would normally outweigh the right of the petitioner (Naik) to hold on to his medical recordsâ€

Your further participation and comments in this discussion are deeply solicited Sir. Please have a look at the case report cited below.

With Kind Regards

Dr. Geer M. Ishaq

Sr. Assistant Professor

Dept. of Pharmaceutical Sciences

University of Kashmir

Srinagar-190006 (J & K)

Ph: 09906673100

http://www.sites.google.com/site/ishaqgeer

Disclosure of medical records of an individual :

In this article I report on an interesting order of the State Information Commission, Maharashtra. It is interesting because for the first time in Maharashtra, the appeal is heard by four State Information Commissioners including the Chief Information Commissioner and the order is signed by 4 SICs.

An application was made by Shri Shailesh Gandhi, RTI Activist, on 27-5-2006 u/s.6 of the RTI Act to the PIO of J.J. Hospital, seeking copies of certain medical reports pertaining to Shri Surupsinh Naik, Ex. Minister during his hospitalisation in J.J. Hospital. Mr. Gandhi neither received the information requested from the PIO, nor from the first Appellate Officer. Hence the second appeal u/s.19(3) of RTI Act to the Commission. The Chief Information Commissioner heard the appeal on 27th & 29th September 2006, but did not pass any order. Again the matter was heard by a Full Bench of the Commission on 5-3-2007 when the Dean and Superintendent of J.J. Hospital and the applicant were present.

Facts and background of the case are :

Shri Surupsinh Naik was imprisoned by the order of Supreme Court for contempt of Court. While undergoing imprisonment, he was transferred to J.J. Hospital because of his ill-health. The applicant wanted the medical reports including ECG and other reports pertaining to Shri Surupsinh Naik during his stay in J.J. Hospital and at the time of his discharge. The Dean of the J.J. Hospital during his argument gave the extract from the book titled â€˜The Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicologyâ€™ by Dr. K. S. Narayan Reddy. The extract states â€œthat the medical records of a patient (in-patient or out-patient) should not be given to any person without the consent of the patient. The police do not have a right to demand medical records except when there is statutory provision for such requisitions. The patientâ€™s record cannot be used in

educational or diagnostic conferences or clinics or for publications, without the patientâ€™s consent.â€ The Medical Authorities of J.J. Hospital having regard to the provision of S. 11 under the RTI Act did seek the consent from Shri Surupsinh Naik to give the intended information on 3rd July 2006. However, there had been no response from his side.

This is a case where two contradictory points â€” right to privacy vis-Ã -vis right to know â€” came for consideration and needed to be weighed to arrive at a decision.

The argument on behalf of the respondents was that the reports of medical examinations are quite personal to the individual and this privacy has to be respected. The hospital authorities are also governed by the ethics of their professions. The applicant argued that disclosing these records would clear doubt in the mind of public whether the stay of Shri Naik in the hospital instead of in the prison was justified or otherwise.

The four-member Bench recorded its reasons in the order and ruled as under :

â€œPeople generally feel that those in high places have money power and when imprisoned they get shifted to hospitals under one pretext or the other and spend their jail term in the hospitals. However, there could be genuine requirement also for the imprisoned person for specialised medical supervision. To remove the veil of secrecy and let people know the actual position in this regard, we feel, would do justice to all the parties concerned, jail authorities, medical authorities at J.J. Hospital and also to Shri Surupsinh Naik who has not responded to the request of consent to give this information. We think that larger public interest would be better served by disclosure of information, rather than continuing doubts in the public mind.â€