Failing to furnish medical records amounts to professional misconduct, infringes patients' rights: Madras HC

Justice G R Swaminathan clarified that a patient is entitled to have all relevant records pertaining to his or her treatment, and cautioned the doctors that withholding the same would amount to professional misconduct and result in tortious liability as it constituted an infringement of the patients' rights.

Swaminathan also mooted digitization of medical records of patients so that hospitals can furnish them to patients when needed.

The court was hearing a petition filed in 2015 by V Jothi from Ramanathapuram district, who sought Rs 15 lakh compensation for the death of her child due to alleged medical negligence.

The petitioner was admitted in Mudukulathur government hospital on May, 17, 2014, for delivery. The duty doctor examined her and opined that the petitioner could have a normal delivery. The petitioner delivered a female child the next day.

After the baby developed asphyxia, the mother and the child were referred to Paramakudi government hospital. As the baby required ventilator support, they were referred to Government Rajaji Hospital (GRH) in Madurai on May 18. The child died on May 20.

Aggrieved, Jothi alleged that if the doctors had performed a C-section instead of choosing 'normal delivery' method, the child might have survived.

Alleging medical negligence, the petitioner's father sent representations demanding action against doctors and paramedical staff concerned. Information about medical records was sought under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Since the efforts did not yield any response, the petitioner had filed the present petition before the Madurai bench of Madras high court in 2015 seeking action against the doctors, staff and seeking compensation.

Deliberating the case, the court said that the decision taken by the doctors that the petitioner could have a normal delivery cannot be faulted with.

It observed;

"Merely because of the untoward outcome, the doctors cannot be blamed with the benefit of hindsight. A child normally delivered can still die due to a variety of causes. Asphyxia can be one."

The court, however, made significant remarks on the aspect that the petitioner was demanding copies of the medical records pertaining to the treatment given to her at G.H, Mudukulathur. However, nothing was furnished. Criticizing the statement of the hospital authorities, the judge said;

"During the last hearing, when this court directed their production, the authorities claim that the records were missing and that a police complaint had been lodged long back.”

Further noting that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution included within its sweep the right to receive information, the court noted;

“Obviously, a patient is entitled to invoke this right. In any event, following the promulgation of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the government hospitals can no longer withhold information from the patients or their attendants. Withholding would amount to professional misconduct and result in tortious liability as it constitutes an infringement of the patients' rights.”

Additionally the court said;

"We have moved into the digital age. It should therefore not be difficult to store all the information in the digital mode. A patient is entitled to be furnished all the relevant records pertaining to his or her treatment. This right can be effectuated only if the information is stored digitally."

Subsequently, the court noted that the petitioner is entitled to compensation on the two grounds, the judge directed the health secretary to pay a compensation of Rs 75,000 to the petitioner within eight weeks.