Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ 

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT AT NEW DELHI  

Case concerning, ‘Right to Privacy’ 

Privacy’ 

Mr. ‘X’ 
‘X’ 

(Appellant)

Vs.

Hospital ‘Z’ 
‘Z’ 

(Respondent)

On submission to the Hon’ble

Hon’ ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

DEEPAK KUMAR, SEM-III BATCH-X ROLL-33

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 1

 

Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.  INDEX OF AUTHORITIES -------------------------------------3

   LIST OF CASES.......................................................... ...........3 

CASES.....................................................................3

   STATUES
STATUE CHARTERS..................................................3  
S AND CHARTERS..................................................3

   LIST OF BOOKS..................................................... ................3 

BOOKS.....................................................................3

2.  ABBREVIATIONS -------------------------------------------------4

 
3. STATEMENTS OF FACTS --------------------------------------5
4.  ISSUES RAISED ---------------------------------------------------6

5.  SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ---------------------------------7

6.  WRITTEN SUBMITTION -------------------------------------8

7.  PRAYER  ----------------------------------------------------------11

 ____________________________
 ___________________________________________
_____________________________
_____________________ 
_______ 

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 2

 

Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ 

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES- 

   Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 1295: (1964) 1 SCR 332
  Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1378
   People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 207,211
  MacDonald v. Clinger 
Clinger 446
446 N.Y.S.2d 801
  Wojcik v. Aluminum Co. of America 183 N.Y.S.2d. 351
  Chizmar v. Mackie 896 P.2d 196 (Alaska 1995)

STATUES AND CHARTERS-

Indian Constitution, Sec 269 & 270 of Indian Penal Code. 

Article 21 of Indian

LIST OF BOOKS-

1.  Jain M.P, 6

th
Edition (2011)
(2011)   “Indian constitutional Law” Haryana: Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur;
2.  Basu Durga Das, (2011) “Introduction to constitution of India” Haryana: Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur;

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 3

 

Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ 

LIST OF ABBREVIATION
ABBREVIATION

1.  A.I.R. : All India Reporter 

2.  App. : Appellant
3.  Approx. : Approximately
4.  Ed. : Edition.
5.  Etc. : etcetera
6.  Hon‟ble : Honorable
7.   No. : number 
8.  Ors. : Other 
9.   pg. : page
10. Res. : Respondent
11. SC : Supreme Court
 
12. SCC : Supreme Court Cases
13. SEC : Section
14. v. : Versace

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 4

 

Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ 

Statement of facts

The Appellants blood was to be transfused to another and therefore a sample thereof was taken at
the Respondents Hospital. 

2. The Appellant was found to be H.I.V.(+). 

3. On account of disclosure of the fact that the Appellant was H.I.V.(+) by the Hospital
authorities without the express consent of the Appellant, the Appellants proposed marriage to Ms
A which had earlier been accepted, was called off. 

4. Moreover, the Appellant was severely criticized and was also ostracized by the community to
such an extent that he had to leave is place of work and residence and shift to a new city.  

5. The Appellant approached the National Consumer Dispute Redressed Commission for 
damages against the Respondents on account of injury and damages suffered to him because of 
disclosure of information required to be kept secret under medical ethics by the Hospital
authorities. 

6. The Commission however dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Appellant could
seek his remedy in the Civil Court.  

7. The Appellant thus appeared before the Supreme Court contending that the principle of Duty
of care applicable to persons in medical profession included the Duty to maintain confidentiality
and the said duty had a correlative right vested in the patient that whatever came to the
knowledge of the doctor would not be divulged.  

8. The Appellant contended that for violating the above duty as well as the Appellants right to
 privacy, the Respondents were liable to pay damages. 

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 5

 

Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ 

CONTENTIONS RAISED

  Whether the respondent was guilty of violating the Appellants right to

privacy guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution?

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 6

 

Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ 

Summary of Pleadings

The respondents were not guilty of violating the Appellants right to privacy
guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution.

It is humbly submitted that, in the instant case the right to privacy of appellant is the Right to
information and Right to Healthy life of the other. The patient suffering from HIV/AIDS enjoy
same privileges and are granted equal rights. But to spread infections of disease dangerous to life
is a criminal offence and  Infected with a venereal disease like HIV/AIDS is grounds for divorce
under Indian matrimonial laws, a person suffering from such a disease has no right to get married
until they are cured.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 7

 

Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ 

WRITTEN SUBMISSION 

The respondents were not guilty of violating the Appellants right to privacy
guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution
constitution..

1)  There is no right as such as right to Privacy enshrined under the fundamental rights in the
constitution of India.

It is humbly submitted that the literal meaning of privacy, as defined in the New Oxford English
1
Dictionary  is the „absence or avoidance
or avoidance of publicity or display; the state or condition from being
withdrawn from the society of others, or from public interest; seclusion.‟ The Black‟s Law
2
Dictionary  refers to privacy as “the right to be let alone; the right of a person to be free f rom
rom
unwarranted publicity; and the right to live without unwarranted interference by the public in
 
matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned”

It is humbly submitted that the constitution does not grant in specific and express terms any right
to privacy as such. Right to privacy is not enumerated as a fundamental right in constitution.
However, such a right has been culled by the Supreme Court from article 21 and several other 
 provisions of the Constitution read with the Directive Principals of State Policy.

3
In case of  Kharak
of  Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh a question was raised whether the right to
 privacy could be implied from the existing Fundamental
Fund amental Rights, in its majority
maj ority judgment
jud gment in the
decision of right to privacy held that “Our Constitution does not in terms confer any like
constitutional guarantee” 
guarantee” 

4
In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh  the Supreme Court undertook a more elaborated
appraisal of right to privacy and held that “Right to privacy is not absolute; reasonable
restrictions can be placed thereon in public interest and under  procedure
 procedure established by law” 
law” 

5
The Supreme Court observed in People’s
in People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union
Union of India  

1
 The New Oxford Dictionary, (Vol. 2, 1993)  
2
 Black‟s Law Dictionary, (6th Ed., 1990).  
3  AIR 1963 SC 1295: (1964) 1 SCR 332  
4
AIR 1975 SC 1378

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 8

 

Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ 

“We have; therefore, no hesitation in holding that right to privacy is a part of the right to "life"
and "personal liberty" enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given
case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed
"except according to procedure established by law".”
law".” 

In present case Mr. X was suffering from HIV/AIDS which is communicable disease and there is
no such proper cure of the disease. 

The General Medical Council of Great Britain in its guidance of HIV infection and AIDS has
 provided as under:
"Where diagnosis has been made by a specialist and the patient after appropriate counselling still
refuses permission for the General Practitioner to be informed of the result that request for 
 privacy should be respected. The only exception would be when failure to disclose would put the
health of the healthcare team at serious risk. Occasionally the doctor may wish to disclose a

diagnosis to a third party other than a health-care professional. The Council think that the only
ground for this are when there is a serious and identifiable risk to a specific person, who, if not
so informed would be exposed to infection. A doctor may consider it a duty to ensure that any
sexual partner is informed regardless of the patient's own wishes."
Thus, the Code of Medical Ethics also carves out an exception to the rule of confidentiality and
 permits the disclosure in the circumstances enumerate
enum erate above under which public interest would
override the duty of confidentiality, particularly where there is an immediate or future health risk 
to others. 
6
In case of  MacDonald v. Clinger  it was held that Disclosure of confidential information to a
spouse will be justified whenever there is a danger to the patient, the spouse, or another person;
otherwise information should not be disclosed without authorization.  

7
Also in Wojcik v. Aluminum Co. of America , holding that a physician had a duty to warn the
spouse of a patient diagnosed with tuberculosis where there was a foreseeable risk that the
spouse would be exposed to the disease.

5
AIR 1991 SC 207,211.
6  446 N.Y.S.2d 801 
7
183 N.Y.S.2d. 351

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 9

 

Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ 

8
In Chizmar v. Mackie the Supreme Court of Alaska refused to hold a physician liable for breach
of confidentiality after informing a patient's spouse of her condition without her
h er authorization.

In the light of the above the counsel humbly submits that in present case Mr. X suffering from
HIV/AIDS which is communicable in form and appellant has no right to Privacy for its
HIV/AIDS disclosure as it is in public interest.

2)  Crime against society.

It is humbly submitted that Marriage is the sacred union, legally permissible. It has to be mental,
 psychological and physical union. Mental and physical health is of prime importance in a
marriage, as one of the objects of the marriage is the procreation of equally healthy children.
Every system of matrimonial law suffering from venereal disease, in a communicable form, is
ground of Divorce. Section 13(i)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 2 of the
Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, Indian
Divorce Act, 1869, Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act says about dissolution of marriage on
ground of venerable disease.
Therefore the marriage between Mr. X and Y would certainly lead to divorce and this would be
the Y‟s infringement of Right to Life and Information
Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code provide as under:
"269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life - whoever unlawfully
or negligently does not act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to
spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of 
either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life - whoever malignantly
does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the
infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either 
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

In the light of the above the counsel humbly submits that in present case if Mr. X‟s Blood Report
wouldn‟t be disclosed then Y too would have been infected with the dreadful disease if the
marriage had taken place and consummated.
8
 896 P.2d 196 (Alaska 1995)  

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 10

 

Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ 

PRAYER  

In light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Appellant, humbl
humblyy
Prays that this Honorable Court, to adjudge and declare that:

I.  Respondent should not be liable. And

II.   No compensation to be given to Appellant. Or 
III.  The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which the court may deem fit
in light of justice equity and good conscience.
con science.

All of which is most humbly submitted bef ore this Hon’ble Court.  

Counsel f or Appellant  

Deepak K 
k K umar

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 11