https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168425 The court ruled that the infringement of the "Suspended Right to Marry" due to the disclosure of the appellant's HIV(+) status cannot be compensated by damages. It held that the disclosure was justified under the duty of care in the medical profession to prevent health risks to the appellant's prospective spouse. The court emphasized that the right to privacy is not absolute and can be restricted for the protection of health and the rights of others. The disclosure of the HIV status was deemed necessary to protect the prospective spouse, considering legal and ethical implications, including the criminalization of spreading infectious diseases. en-us Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:46:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168425 The court ruled that the infringement of the "Suspended Right to Marry" due to the disclosure of the appellant's HIV(+) status cannot be compensated by damages. It held that the disclosure was justified under the duty of care in the medical profession to prevent health risks to the appellant's prospective spouse. The court emphasized that the right to privacy is not absolute and can be restricted for the protection of health and the rights of others. The disclosure of the HIV status was deemed necessary to protect the prospective spouse, considering legal and ethical implications, including the criminalization of spreading infectious diseases. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168425