Madras High Court: Withholding Patient Information by Government Hospitals Deemed Professional Misconduct
In a recent landmark verdict, the Madras High Court has declared that the act of government hospitals withholding information from patients or their attendants will now be classified as professional misconduct, holding the responsible parties liable for tortious actions. The ruling came in response to a case titled Jothi vs The State and Others.
Justice GR Swaminathan underscored that the Indian Constitution's Article 19(1)(a), encompassing the right to receive information, inherently applies to patients, entitling them to invoke this fundamental right.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the Right to Information (RTI) Act mandates government hospitals to no longer withhold information from patients or their attendants. Such withholding, according to the Court, would constitute a violation of patients' rights and professional ethics. Both government and private hospitals are bound to uphold this standard, maintaining medical records and providing them to patients or their representatives within 72 hours of the request. Failure to comply would consequently infringe upon the patient's rights.
The case that prompted this significant decision was initiated by a woman seeking accountability from officials of a government hospital for alleged medical negligence. Alongside her plea for justice, she also sought compensation amounting to ₹15 lakhs.
The woman's grievance dates back to 2014 when she delivered a baby girl in a government hospital in Mudukulathur. Subsequently, due to the newborn's asphyxia, mother and child were transferred to other government hospitals, where tragically, the infant passed away.
The woman contended that her baby's demise was a result of medical negligence and raised concerns about the circumstances of the baby's care. She asserted that if a timely cesarean operation had been conducted, her baby's life could have been saved. Furthermore, she alleged that despite requesting her medical records, they were wrongfully withheld.
On the other side, the Special Government Pleader (SGP) and legal representatives for the doctor and nurse in question refuted the allegations, seeking the dismissal of the case.
The Court's stance remained steadfast – irrespective of whether a doctor serves in a government or private institution, the same standard of care applies. Citing global shifts in medical ethics, the Court emphasized that patients are now recognized as rights-holders rather than passive recipients of medical attention, referencing the case of Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board.
Advancing into the digital age, the Court noted that the digital storage of medical information should facilitate easy access to patient records, aligning with patients' entitlement to a comprehensive overview of their treatment.
The Court dismissed the woman's claim that a caesarean operation could have saved her baby, clarifying that the doctor's decisions were in line with standard medical practice. However, the Court did acknowledge that the absence of ventilator support at the hospital where the child was delivered forced unnecessary transfers to distant facilities.
Crucially, the Court held that the hospital's failure to furnish information to the woman encroached upon her rights, and consequently, the woman was awarded ₹75,000 in compensation.
Advocate KR Laxman represented the petitioner, while advocate K Appadurai represented the doctor from the Mudukulathur hospital, and advocate KC Ramalingam represented the duty nurse at the Kamuthi hospital. This verdict marks a significant stride in upholding patients' rights and reinforcing medical accountability in the healthcare sector.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Madras High Court government hospitals patient information professional misconduct tortious liability Article 19(1)(a) Indian Constitution Right to Information (RTI) Act medical records patient's rights compensation medical negligence asphyxia cesarean operation digital age Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board ventilator support infringement of rights accountability advocate KR Laxman advocate K Appadurai advocate KC Ramalingam.
