• §8(1)(j) — patient personal data — medical records, diagnosis, treatment.
• §8(1)(e) — doctor-patient fiduciary relationship.
• §4(1)(b)(xii) — beneficiary lists (Ayushman Bharat, CGHS).
• §10 — severability, essential in mixed records.
• §11 — third-party notice (patient) where applicable.
• Clinical Establishments Act, 2010 — disclosure duties of facilities.
• Indian Public Health Standards (IPHS) — institutional standards; records aligned are disclosable.

1. Step 1. Institutional or individual-patient?
2. Step 2. Own data or third-party?
3. Step 3. For institutional queries — default to disclosure; apply IPHS as the checklist.
4. Step 4. For third-party patient data — §8(1)(j) + fiduciary §8(1)(e). Decline unless own or overriding public interest (public-health outbreak investigation).
5. Step 5. §11 notice where named third party is implicated.
6. Step 6. §10 redaction for aggregates that include identifiable patients.
7. Step 7. Speaking reply; doctor-patient privilege is a strong anchor.

The RTI seeks [duty roster / drug stock / equipment register] of [Hospital Name] for the period DD-MM-YYYY to DD-MM-YYYY. This is institutional information.

Enclosed at Annexure A-C:
(a) OPD duty roster (by specialty) with attendance
(b) Essential-drug stock register (item-wise, receipts/issues/balance)
(c) Equipment register (functional / repair / maintenance dates)

Redactions under §10:
- Individual staff mobile / address — §8(1)(j)
- Personal ID numbers of patients in referral register — §8(1)(j)

First-appeal rights preserved.

The RTI seeks the medical record of Shri X admitted on DD-MM-YYYY. The record is personal medical information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Additionally, doctor-patient privilege attaches under Section 8(1)(e). Disclosure would impair the fiduciary relationship.

§11 notice to the patient was issued on DD-MM-YYYY; patient has objected / has not authorised disclosure.

§8(2) balancing: No larger public interest pleaded.

§10 severability: Not reasonable given wholly-personal nature.

A patient may obtain their own record by filing a direct request.

First-appeal rights preserved.

• Hospital's overall OPD numbers for a month. Disclose.
• Particular doctor's consultations on a specific day. Partial — aggregate disclosable; named-patient list exempt.
• Own operation record. Disclose to self.
• A public-figure's hospital admission. Generally exempt; carve-outs for legitimate public interest (e.g., elected representative in hospital at public expense).
• Ayushman Bharat denied claim for own treatment. Disclose to self — own file.
• Pattern of claim-rejection rates at empanelled hospitals. Institutional aggregate disclose; named-patient data redact.
• Blood-bank donor matching record. Institutional testing-register disclose; donor identity redact.

• Girish Deshpande (2013) 1 SCC 212 — personal data under §8(1)(j).
• CIC orders on AIIMS, ICMR, NHA — institutional transparency; patient privacy.
• Kerala HC on public-health RTI — aggregate outbreak-response data disclosable.

• Releasing patient-identifiable data in aggregate tables.
• Denying own medical record — self-data is disclosable.
• Over-invoking doctor-patient privilege to shield institutional failures.
• Missing §11 notice to the patient for third-party requests.
• Over-charging for photocopying voluminous medical files.

• Separate registers for institutional (roster, stock) vs patient data — simplifies disclosure.
• Digital redaction templates for patient IDs.
• Proactive disclosure of beneficiary lists (Ayushman, CGHS empanelment) under §4.
• Public-health information pages — outbreak data, vaccination coverage — reduce RTI load.

Q1. Can I get my surgery record from a government hospital?
Yes — own record, disclosable to self.

Q2. Can I get data on a neighbour's admission?
No — third-party medical record, exempt.

Q3. Can I get aggregate outbreak data?
Yes — institutional public-health data is disclosable.

Q4. Is doctor-patient privilege absolute?
Privilege is strong but not absolute. Public-interest override in §8(2) can operate for serious public-health or criminal-investigation matters.

Hospital RTIs sit at the intersection of institutional transparency and patient privacy. Separating the two — with §10 redaction discipline and §11 patient notice — produces replies that serve both values.

• RTI for government hospitals — citizen side
• Section 8(1)(j) framework
• Section 8(1)(e) framework
• PIO & FAA knowledge base

• RTI Act, 2005, §§8(1)(e), 8(1)(j), 10, 11
• Indian Public Health Standards, 2022
• PM-JAY (Ayushman Bharat) SOPs

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.