Man moves court over privacy breach by doctor

The petitioner, a student of BA (Hons) in Psychology at Delhi University, was taking treatment from a doctor at a private hospital from June 15, 2019, and alleged that the latter compromised his privacy.

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought working status of mental health boards in the city after a man said there is no authority to consider his complain against a psychiatrist, who told her mother about his homosexuality in breach of his privacy and confidentiality.

On Friday, advocate Mihir Samson, appearing for the petitioner, told the court that he had written to the private hospital to take action against the erring doctor, though the request was not entertained. (Mint file photo)

Justice Prathiba M Singh asked the State Mental Health Authority (SMHA), represented by advocate Tushar Sannu, to file status reports on the current functioning of the Mental Health Review Board (MHRB), SMHA and its members, on the plea by a 19-year-old man who was taking treatment from a psychiatrist after being diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) in 2016.

The petitioner, a student of BA (Hons) in Psychology at Delhi University, was taking treatment from a doctor at a private hospital from June 15, 2019, and alleged that the latter compromised his privacy.

During the course of his session with the doctor on that day, where he was present on his own, he claimed that he informed her that he was exploring his sexual orientation. He said that he categorically told the doctor that he was fearful of his parent’s reaction and the consequences if he told them about it.

Following this, on June 29, 2019, he was referred to a clinical psychologist for cognitive behavioural therapy. While starting weekly sessions with the clinical psychologist, he would periodically discuss his progress with the psychiatrist.

In July 2019, the man turned a major and the plea contended that the doctor never insisted him to bring his parent prior to this. During a session on August 3, 2019, when the man was accompanied by his mother, the doctor had a private conversation with his mother, the details of which were not divulged to him.

During the subsequent session on September 14, 2019, the doctor allegedly informed him that based on her conversation with his mother; she also believed that his parent would not accept a non-normative sexual orientation. In June 2020, while the man was again accompanied with his mother, the doctor reportedly had a lengthy private conversation with his mother once again.

On June 25, 2020, the man reportedly got to know that the doctor revealed his sexual orientation to his mother. The plea claimed that during the course of the conversation between the man’s mother and the doctor on June 20, 2020, his mother made a specific enquiry regarding his sexual orientation and the doctor divulged the details that had been confidentially communicated to her by the petitioner, despite knowing that he did not want to tell his parent about the same.

The plea said that the man was still exploring his sexuality, and had informed the doctor in complete confidence about this. Anticipating his parent’s likely adverse reaction, the plea further pointed out that the man needed sufficient time before he could talk about his sexuality with them.

“The process of coming out, that is, of informing others about one’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or both, which may include one’s family, friends and colleagues, is a deeply personal experience with profound implications on an individual’s life and safety. A person’s sexual orientation and gender identity are intimate aspects of their life and the decision to discuss this with others rests entirely with that person alone….,” the plea read.

On Friday, advocate Mihir Samson, appearing for the petitioner, told the court that he had written to the private hospital to take action against the erring doctor, though the request was not entertained. He said that he wanted to complain to the MHRB, since it has been the authority of the second instance.

However, due to the failure of the Delhi government to implement the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, the state authority set up under the repealed Mental Health Act, 1987, continues to operate as the SMHA for Delhi under the 2017 Act, as well as the MHRB which is entirely contrary to the scheme of the Act, he submitted.

While the Delhi government, represented by advocate Devesh Singh sought time to seek instructions, Sannu, appearing for the SMHA, disputed the submission of the petitioner. He said that both the authorities are working even though there is a temporary arrangement in place.

He said that retired district and sessions judge Subash Goel was currently presiding over the MHRB, adding that action will be taken against the doctor if a complaint is filed with the doctor.

Following this, the court asked him to file status reports and posted the matter for hearing on July 22