1998 (9) TMI 650 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Infringement of "Suspended Right to Marry"
2. Duty of Care and Confidentiality in Medical Profession
3. Right to Privacy and its Limitations
4. Legal and Ethical Implications of Disclosing HIV Status

Summary:

1. Infringement of "Suspended Right to Marry":
The court ruled that the infringement of the "Suspended Right to Marry" cannot be legally compensated by damages either in Torts or common law. The appellant, an MBBS graduate and Assistant Surgeon, had his marriage proposal called off due to his HIV(+) status disclosed by the respondent's hospital.

2. Duty of Care and Confidentiality in Medical Profession:
The appellant contended that the respondents violated the "duty of care" by disclosing his HIV status, which should have been kept confidential under medical ethics. The court referred to the Hippocratic Oath and the Indian Medical Council Act, which emphasize confidentiality but also carve out exceptions for public interest and health risks. The court concluded that the disclosure was justified to prevent the health risk to the appellant's prospective spouse.

3. Right to Privacy and its Limitations:
The appellant argued that his right to privacy was infringed by the disclosure of his HIV status. The court examined the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, referencing previous judgments and international conventions. It was held that the right to privacy is not absolute and can be lawfully restricted for the protection of health, morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. The disclosure was deemed necessary to protect the prospective spouse from the health risk.

4. Legal and Ethical Implications of Disclosing HIV Status:
The court discussed the legal and ethical implications of disclosing medical information, particularly in the context of marriage. It was emphasized that marriage involves the union of healthy bodies, and concealing a communicable venereal disease like HIV would be unethical and illegal. The court referred to various matrimonial laws that allow divorce on grounds of venereal disease. Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code were also cited, which criminalize the negligent or malignant act of spreading infectious diseases.

The court concluded that the respondents' disclosure of the appellant's HIV status was not a violation of confidentiality or privacy rights. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that public morality and health considerations outweigh individual privacy in such cases.