Madras HC Orders Hospital To Give Accident Victim’s Widow Day-to-Day Treatment Records To Pursue Insurance Claim

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to obtain her late husband’s day-to-day inpatient records and death summary from the second respondent hospital for the relevant treatment period

The court held

The Court allowed the request for hospital records and directed the second respondent to furnish the relevant treatment records, including the day-to-day Indoor Case Papers and death summary for 7–11 November 2025, within three weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs; no direction was issued to process or settle the insurance claim.

01Facts

The petitioner’s husband, a Government employee, died on 11 November 2025 after a road accident and treatment at the second respondent Government hospital from 7 to 11 November 2025.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2–3

The petitioner lodged a personal accident insurance claim under the scheme referred to in G.O. Ms. No. 113, Finance (Treasuries and Accounts-III) Department, dated 14 May 2025.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

The insurer repeatedly sought treatment records, including day-to-day inpatient records and a death summary. The hospital declined to furnish those records without a court summons, stating that the matter involved a medico-legal death.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 4–6

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the records and, consequentially, processing and settlement of the claim.

p. 2, 5 · ¶ 1, 7

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to obtain her late husband’s day-to-day inpatient records and death summary from the second respondent hospital for the relevant treatment period

p. 5 · ¶ 9

ii.Whether the Court should direct the respondents to process and settle the personal accident insurance claim

p. 2 · p. 5 · ¶ 1, 7

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the requested hospital records were neither confidential nor classified and could be furnished to the petitioner; it did not cite any statute, precedent, or further legal test.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

G.O. Ms. No. 113, Finance (Treasuries and Accounts-III) Department, dated 14 May 2025, was part of the claim’s background, but the Court did not interpret or apply it to determine entitlement to insurance proceeds.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

04Reasoning

The Court considered the requested records to be the deceased’s day-to-day inpatient treatment papers and death summary, and found that their non-confidential and non-classified character supported disclosure to the petitioner. Their stated purpose was to enable her to pursue the insurance claim.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

Although the petition also sought directions for processing and settling that claim, the Court’s operative reasoning and order addressed only the hospital’s duty to provide the records; it did not decide the claim’s merits or direct its settlement.

p. 5 · ¶ 9–10