NEW DELHI, Nov 16: The Supreme Court has held that if a marriage was called off due to a person suffering from a dreaded disease like Aids, the aggrieved person was not entitled to compensation from the hospital which disclosed his state of health.``So long as the person is not cured of the communicable venereal disease or impotency, the right to marry cannot be enforced through a court of law and shall be treated to be a suspended right,'' a division bench comprising Justices S Saghir Ahmed and B N Kirpal ruled.A doctor from Nagaland sought compensation from Apollo hospital at Madras, where it was found that he was HIV positive, saying the hospital violated the medical ethics by disclosing the nature of the disease to his to be bride's family which resulted in his social ostracisation.Dismissing the doctor's petition, the bench said, ``in this situation, the right to marry and duty to inform about his ailment are vested in the same person.``If a person suffering from the dreadful disease Aids,knowingly marries a woman and therby transmits infection to that woman, he would be guilty of offences in section 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) and Section 270 (malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),'' the bench added.These two sections of the IPC ``thus impose a duty upon the appellant not to marry as the marriage would have effect of spreading the infection of his own disease, which obviously is dangerous to life of the woman whom he marries apart from being an offence,'' the bench said.The court held that the hospital, by their disclosure that the doctor was HIV positive, `cannot be said to have, in any way, either violated the rule of confidentiality or the right of privacy' since the right to life of the would be bride includes right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime condition.``Moreover, where there is a clash of the two fundamentalrights as in the instant case, namely, the doctor's right to privacy as part of right to life and the bride's right to lead a healthy life which is her fundamental right under Article 21, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court..,'' the court observed.However, the court said ``patients suffering from the dreadful Aids disease deserve full sympathy. They are entitled to all respect as human beings. Their society cannot and should not be avoided... They have to have right to avocation. Government jobs or services cannot be denied to them as has been laid down in some American decisions.''``But, `sex' with them or possibility thereof has to be avoided as otherwise they would infect and communicate the dreadful disease to others. The court cannot assist that person to achieve that object,'' the bench added.
