NEW DELHI, July 24:
Patients have a right to get their medical records from hospitals, both public and private, Central Information Commission has held while ordering disclosure of information to a former RAW official.
Nisha Priya Bhatia, a former official of country’s snooping agency Research and Analysis Wing, sought her medical records from Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences where she was admitted on the orders of Delhi High Court.
These records were refused to her as the Institute cited section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act which allows an authority to withhold information which would impede an investigation.
Rejecting the contention, Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said patients have a right to their medical records which is rooted in Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and respondent hospitals have a duty to provide it.
He said information commissions can enforce this right to information of patients against both Government and Private hospitals, whether they are public authorities or not, as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commissioner said hospitals have duty to provide the same under Right to Information Act, 2005, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Medical Council Act, 1956 and world medical ethics read with Constitutional rights.
Bhatia had alleged before the Commission that her superiors got antagonised against her for no reason, started withdrawing her privileges as an officer, gradually and ultimately her chair was also removed leaving her with no place to sit and work.
She alleged that a “deliberate conspiracy” and attempt to depict her as mentally sick person just because she had filed complaints against her superiors.
“The background stated suggests that she is in dire need of the medical records to tell the world that she was not mentally sick but fit and also for defending her case before the appropriate forum,” Acharyulu noted.
The Information Commissioner said patient is a “consumer”
under Consumer Protection Act which also allows them to get information about treatment given to them by hospitals.
“This imposes a statutory obligation not only on public authorities such as the respondents in the case but also to every hospital, public or private, to furnish the record to the patient,” he said.
Acharyulu said the information regarding medical records especially when the appellant is disputing her stay and treatment will be categorised as the case concerning life and liberty of the appellant and such information should be disclosed within 48 hours as mandated in the RTI Act.
The Information Commissioner said if her allegation, that she was unnecessarily treated in the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences for no reason or for wrongful reasons, is proved then her stay in the hospital could be considered “illegal detention”.
“This would raise questions of serious violation of right to life and liberty…It was denied without explaining any justification and without substantiating how her petition could not fall under life and liberty clause or how exception of impeding investigation would attract,” he said.
Citing order of the Delhi High Court, the Information Commissioner said it is mandatory for public authority to show that disclosure of the information would in fact impede the process of investigation.
“The officers of respondent authority told Commission that no such investigation was under process. They did not present anything to explain as to how Section 8(1)(h) could be used to be deny the information,” he said in 24-page order.
Acharyulu also issued a show cause notice on the hospital for invoking non-applicable clause to deny the information.
He said an “empty claim” of exception under the section 8(1)(h) cannot justify the authority to refuse the information for which the appellant has right both under RTI Act and Consumer Protection Act. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel