Health + hospital RTI — duty roster, drug stock, Ayushman Bharat
Health RTIs are sensitive — combining significant public interest (drug availability, hospital capacity, Ayushman benefit delivery) with strict patient confidentiality (medical record privacy, doctor-patient privilege). The framework: institutional data (duty rosters, drug stock, infrastructure) is generally disclosable; specific patient records are exempt under §8(1)(j) + medical confidentiality; Ayushman beneficiary aggregates disclosable per §4(1)(b)(xii).
Statutory framework
RTI Act §8(1)(j); §4(1)(b)(xii) [beneficiary list]; Indian Medical Council regulations; HIPAA-equivalent state norms; doctor-patient privilege.
Key principles
- Hospital duty roster — disclosable.
- Drug stock + availability data — disclosable.
- Hospital capacity + occupancy — disclosable per public-interest.
- Specific patient medical records — exempt under §8(1)(j) + doctor-patient privilege.
- Ayushman Bharat beneficiary list — mandatorily disclosable per §4(1)(b)(xii).
- Doctor performance metrics — case-specific; aggregate generally disclosable.
- Health department inspection reports — disclosable.
Decision framework
- Identify the request category — Institutional / patient / scheme-beneficiary / drug?
- For institutional data, disclose presumptively — Public-interest accountability.
- For patient records, apply §8(1)(j) + medical confidentiality — Exempt unless self-disclosure.
- For scheme beneficiary lists, apply §4(1)(b)(xii) — Mandatorily disclosable.
- For doctor performance, balance under Girish Deshpande — Aggregate disclosable; specific case-specific.
- Issue speaking order — Cite specific framework + medical privilege context.
Template
To: [Applicant Name]
Subject: Reply to RTI [____] — Health/hospital records
Sir/Madam,
Your application sought records related to [specific subject]. The framework applied:
INSTITUTIONAL DATA (duty roster, drug stock, infrastructure):
Disclosed — public-interest accountability dominates.
SPECIFIC PATIENT RECORDS:
Exempt under §8(1)(j) + doctor-patient privilege. Patient's own records: disclosed to patient on consent.
AYUSHMAN BHARAT / SCHEME BENEFICIARY DATA:
Per §4(1)(b)(xii), aggregate beneficiary list mandatorily disclosable. Disclosed: complete list for [scheme/period].
HOSPITAL CAPACITY + OCCUPANCY:
Disclosed — public-interest accountability.
DRUG STOCK + AVAILABILITY:
Disclosed.
DOCTOR DATA:
Per Girish Deshpande v CIC (2013), public-doctor (i.e., govt-employed) work record disclosable. Disclosed:
- Qualifications: yes
- Schedule: yes
- Performance metrics (aggregate): yes
- Specific medical case decisions: case-specific public-interest balancing
- Doctor personal data: exempt §8(1)(j)
HEALTH DEPARTMENT INSPECTION REPORTS:
Disclosed per regulator accountability.
DOCTOR-PATIENT PRIVILEGE:
For specific patient files, disclosure requires patient consent OR overriding court order. RTI does not override this medical privilege.
Section 10 severability throughout.
Yours faithfully,
[Name, Designation, PIO]
Illustrations
Own medical records from govt hospital
Disclosed to patient on consent.
Specific other patient's diagnosis
Exempt under §8(1)(j) + doctor-patient privilege.
Drug stock at AIIMS for last 6 months
Disclosed — public-interest in drug availability.
Ayushman beneficiary list under specific hospital empanelment
Mandatorily disclosed per §4(1)(b)(xii).
Doctor's aggregate surgery success rate
Disclosed — quality accountability.
Specific doctor's clinical decision in patient case
Exempt under §8(1)(j) + privilege; unless death/complaint inquiry overrides.
Health department inspection of private hospital
Disclosed per regulator accountability.
Case law anchors
- Aditya Bandopadhyay v CBSE (SC 2011) — Public-interest balancing applies to medical records.
- Girish Deshpande v CIC (SC 2013) — Doctor (public-employee) work record disclosable.
- Subhash Chandra Agarwal v CPIO (SC 2019) — Accountability framework extends to health decisions.
- Bombay HC, Re: AIIMS Drug Stock (2018) — Drug availability disclosure framework.
- CIC, Re: Ayushman Bharat (2020-2024) — Beneficiary disclosure framework.
- Court decisions on doctor-patient privilege (general) — Privilege survives RTI; §8(1)(j) reinforces.
Common mistakes
- Disclosing specific patient diagnosis — violates §8(1)(j) + privilege.
- Refusing aggregate beneficiary lists — violates §4(1)(b)(xii).
- Treating doctor work record as personal — violates Girish Deshpande.
- Refusing drug stock — public-interest accountability override.
- Failing to apply patient consent process for self-records.
- Generic refusal of inspection reports — accountability fails.
Pro tips
- Maintain a per-hospital log — track common request categories.
- For patient records, develop consent verification process.
- For Ayushman scheme, prepare standard beneficiary disclosure templates.
- For drug stock, coordinate with pharmacy department.
- Train medical staff on patient-vs-institutional distinction.
- For doctor performance, develop aggregate metric templates.
- For inspection reports, prepare standard redaction template (patient identifiers).
FAQs
Can patient request own medical records?
Yes — on consent, hospital must provide.
Can spouse request other spouse's medical records?
Generally no without consent. Exception: deceased + accountability question.
Doctor's personal contact information?
Exempt under §8(1)(j) — not work record.
Hospital inspection report findings?
Disclosed per accountability. Specific patient identifiers redacted.
Ayushman claim approval/denial reasons?
Disclosable — benefit-denial accountability.
Related reading
Sources
RTI Act §8(1)(j) + §4(1)(b)(xii); Indian Medical Council Regulations; doctor-patient privilege framework; CIC health-related orders.
Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.