The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has observed that the denial of timely and unfettered access to one’s medical records undermines not only statutory consumer rights but also compromises the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as interpreted in landmark judgments of the Supreme Court.
The Commission said that access to one’s medical records — whether physical or digital — was indispensable not only for seeking second opinions and ensuring continuity of care, but also for facilitating effective grievance redressal. It also recommended that doctors prescribe generic medicines in a clear and legible manner.
The Commission, comprising president D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by the husband of Saiju Mujeeb, 38, of North Paravur, alleging gross negligence, failure to diagnose, and improper post-operative care.
“Hospitals and healthcare providers are therefore reminded of their ethical and legal obligation to ensure that patients are provided with their medical records in a timely and accessible manner. Both modern medical ethics and advancements in health information technology support a patient-centric system in which medical records are made readily accessible through secure digital means,” said the Commission.
The Commission, drawing on its broader mandate to promote consumer welfare and transparency in healthcare, recommended that regulatory bodies ensure the secure digital delivery of medical records in compliance with applicable data protection laws, fulfil requests for records preferably within 72 hours, and implement interoperable electronic health record (EHR) systems to promote seamless access and continuity of care.
It also called for disclosure to patients at the time of admission or discharge regarding their right to receive medical records in physical or digital format, along with information on encryption, password protection, and consent protocols for all digital transmissions of sensitive medical data. The Commission further recommended public education initiatives to raise awareness about patients’ rights to medical records and the confidentiality safeguards.
It also dismissed the petition alleging post-surgery complications on the grounds that no deficiency in service could be established. The complainant had failed to prove that the treatment deviated from accepted professional standards or that the subsequent complications were directly caused by any act or omission on the part of the opposite parties, the Commission observed, while citing the Supreme Court’s dictum that “to hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold of proof is required to be met by the complainant.”
