[2016] KEHAT 22 (KLR)

[2016] KEHAT 22 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the respondent hospital conducted HIV testing on the claimant without her informed consent, in violation of Sections 13 and 14 of HAPCA. The Tribunal rejected the respondent’s argument that such testing was lawful as part of routine medical care, holding that informed consent is mandatory...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHAT 22 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: CNM; Respondent: The Karen Hospital Limited
Court
HIV and AIDS Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 008 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; claimant awarded general damages and costs.
Judges
JO Arwa, S Bosire, C Maringo, V Awori, N Otuoma, M Gethoi
Legal Topics
Medical Confidentiality, Informed Consent, Privacy Rights, Hiv Testing, Damages for Tort, Patient Rights
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Constitutional Law Medical Confidentiality Informed Consent Privacy Rights Hiv Testing Damages for Tort +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CNM

Claimant

The Karen Hospital Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was compelled to undergo HIV testing without her informed consent.
  2. 2 Whether the HIV tests were preceded by pre-test and post-test counselling as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether HIV testing can lawfully be done without informed consent and without pre-test and post-test counseling.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the respondent hospital conducted HIV testing on the claimant without her informed consent, in violation of Sections 13 and 14 of HAPCA. The Tribunal rejected the respondent’s argument that such testing was lawful as part of routine medical care, holding that informed consent is mandatory unless the patient is unconscious and unable to give consent. The Tribunal also found that the respondent breached the claimant’s right to confidentiality by forwarding information from which her HIV status could be inferred to her insurer, contrary to Section 22(1) of HAPCA. However, the Tribunal found that the claimant did not strictly prove the absence of pre-test and post-test...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; claimant awarded general damages and costs.

Orders

  • The respondent shall pay the claimant KES 2,500,000 in general damages for HIV testing without informed consent and breach of confidentiality.
  • The respondent shall pay the costs of the claim to the claimant.