Supreme Court of India - Right to Marry

Mr. X v. Hospital Z (1998) 8 SCC 296, AIR 1998 SCW 3662 -- Supreme Court of India (Right to Marry)

MR. X (The Appellant) obtained the Degree of MBBS in 1987. In June, 1990 he joined a state Government's state medical and health service as Assistant Surgeon Grade-I. In September, 1991 he joined the further course of Diploma in Opthamalogy which he completed in April, 1993. In August, 1993 he resumed his duties in the State Health service as Assistant Surgeon Grade - I.

Mr. X's uncle who was a minister in the state government was ailing from a disease which was provisionally diagnosed as Aortic Anuerism. He was advised to go to the 'Z' Hospital and Mr. X was directed by the Government of the State to accompany the said patient to the South of India for treatment. He was posted for surgery on May 31, 1995 which, however, was cancelled due to shortage of blood. On June 1, 1995 Mr. X and his driver were asked to donate blood for the operation. Their blood samples were taken and the result showed that Mr. X's blood group was A(+ve). However, Mr. X was not disclosed the result of his tests at all.

In August 1995 the appellant proposed marriage to one Ms. 'Y' which was accepted and the marriage was proposed to be held on December 12, 1995. In the meantime the Hospital informed the minister that Mr. X's blood had tested positive for HIV. When he came to know of this Mr. X himself called of the marriage. The appellant went again to the respondents' hospital where several tests were conducted and he was confirmed HIV(+ve). Since the marriage had been settled but was subsequently called off, several people including the members of the appellant's family and persons belonging to his community became aware of the appellant's HIV(+ve) status. This resulted in severe criticism of the appellant and he was ostracized by the community. The appellant left his State around November 26, 1995.

The appellant then approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for damages against the respondents, on the ground that the information which was required to be kept confidential at common law and under medical ethics was disclosed illegally and, therefore, the respondents were liable to pay damages. The Commission dismissed the Petition summarily by its order dated 3rd July 1998 on the ground that the appellant may seek his remedy in the civil court.

Mr. X therefore approached the Supreme Court. The question of law before the court was whether the National Consumer Forum had the jurisdiction to entertain a case in which the plaintiff was HIV positive and whose status was disclosed by the hospital to 3rd parties. The Supreme Court, however, chose to pass a judgment on merits of the issues and held:

a. Although the doctor-patient confidentiality was important and part of the medical ethics incorporated by the then Medical Council Act, a patient's right to confidentiality was not enforceable in a situation where the patient is HIV positive, if he stood the risk of spreading it to his prospective spouse.

b. Since HIV is fatal and the life of the spouse has to be saved, the right to privacy of the patient is not absolute in this situation and may be restricted. There is nothing wrong, therefore, in Hospital informing the prospective spouse of Mr. X's HIV status.

c. Since Indian matrimonial laws provide venereal disease as a ground for divorce, a person suffering from a VD has no right to get married till s/he is fully cured and such right must be treated as a 'suspended right'.

d. Since acts likely to spread communicable diseases is a crime under the Indian Penal Code, the failure of the hospital to inform the spouse of the disease would make them participant criminals.

e. Patients suffering from 'AIDS' deserve full sympathy; they are entitled to all respects as human beings. They must have their avocation and jobs etc. cannot be denied to them.

Against this Judgement application were filed to review and clarify.