NT Reporter
Panaji
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has set aside an order from the State Information Commission (SIC) directing Goa Medical College (GMC) to disclose the medical conditions of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients.
The court ruled that even general or anonymised information about the medical condition of patients amounts to personal information and is protected under the right to privacy.
The HC concluded that the SIC’s order was “untenable in law” and officially quashed the directive to release the medical data.
The case arose from an RTI application filed by an individual seeking details of ICU bed occupancy in GMC and the medical condition of patients admitted on specific dates, following the death of his son.
The case stems from an incident involving an individual, whose son passed away in January 2024 following a self-accident. He alleged that his son died “for want of an ICU bed” and sought detailed records from the specific ward to verify if other admitted patients actually required intensive care more urgently than his son. While the GMC provided the number of beds (21) and the number of patients admitted, they refused to share specific medical details, citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects personal information.
The SIC ordered GMC to provide the medical status of the occupants of all 21 beds, provided their names and personal identities were withheld. However, the state government and GMC challenged this in the High Court. While limited information on bed availability had already been provided, the Information Commission had ordered disclosure of general medical conditions of all ICU patients without revealing identities. The court ruled the Commission’s order legally untenable and set it aside.
Advocate General Devidas Pangam argued that medical history is “personal information” exempt from disclosure. Disclosure would violate the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and there was no “larger public interest” involved, Pangam stated.
The High Court agreed with the state government, ruling that even anonymised medical information constitutes a violation of privacy.
“Whether or not any particular patient needed an ICU bed more urgently than the petitioner’s son, is a subjective opinion of the doctors on duty… Their professional opinion cannot be called in question in the manner as sought,” the court said.
The court acknowledged the extreme trauma of a parent losing a child but emphasised that the law must protect the fiduciary relationship between doctors and patients.
