LI Network
Published on: 15 August 2023 at 16:54 IST
The Madras High Court recently declared that government hospitals withholding information from patients or their attendants would be deemed as professional misconduct, leading to potential tortious liability.
In the case of Jothi V. The State and Others, Justice GR Swaminathan emphasized the importance of patients’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
The Court highlighted that this right to receive information is applicable to patients as well, and with the Right to Information (RTI) Act in place, government hospitals are obligated to provide information upon request.
The Court clarified that not furnishing information would be regarded as professional misconduct and would lead to the violation of patients’ rights.
The obligation extends to all hospitals, irrespective of whether they are government or private entities. They are required to maintain medical records and provide them to patients or their attendants within 72 hours of the request.
Failure to comply with this requirement would be a breach of the patient’s rights.
The case before the Court involved a woman seeking legal action against officials of a government hospital for alleged medical negligence. She also demanded compensation amounting to ₹15 lakhs.
The woman claimed that in 2014, she gave birth to a female child at a government hospital in Mudukulathur. Due to complications, both the mother and child were referred to different government hospitals, where unfortunately, the baby passed away.
She argued that the baby’s death resulted from medical negligence and that the hospital withheld medical records. Her plea also mentioned that if a cesarean operation had been performed, the baby’s life could have been saved.
The Court emphasized that doctors’ duty of care remains the same whether they work in government or private hospitals.
The standards of professionalism cannot be compromised, and patients’ rights have evolved to be recognized globally, highlighting the principle that patients possess rights, not just passive recipients of medical care.
The Court noted that in the digital age, storing medical information digitally should not pose a challenge. Patients are entitled to access their treatment records, and the digital storage of information can facilitate this process effectively.
While the Court did not support the claim that the baby was stillborn and could have been saved with a cesarean operation, it acknowledged that availability of ventilator support at the delivering hospital could have prevented the need for the woman and her child to travel long distances for medical attention.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the hospital’s failure to provide information infringed upon the woman’s rights, entitling her to compensation of ₹75,000.
The petitioner was represented by advocate KR Laxman, the doctor on duty was represented by advocate K Appadurai, and a duty nurse was represented by advocate KC Ramalingam.
