(AAB Appeal No. 6 of 2020)
Data correction request —a data user may refuse to comply with the request if it is not satisfied that the correction is correct—data correction request should be made by a data subject — primary subject matter of the complaint did not relate to protection of personal data privacy — discretion not to further investigate the complaint duly exercised
Coram:
Mr Douglas LAM Tak-yip, SC (Presiding Chairman)
Mr Eugene CHAN Yat-him (Member)
Ir LAU Wing-yan (Member)
Date of Decision: 29 September 2021
The Complaint
The Appellant was a couple who received family counselling service from a social worker of a non-profit organisation (“Organisation”). The Organisation subsequently referred the wife’s case to a hospital (“Hospital”) for follow-up. Upon receipt of the referral from the Organisation, the Hospital sent the psychiatric doctor and nurse from its community outreach team (“Outreach Team”) to visit the Appellant’s home. The Outreach Team met with the wife and collected further information from her.
The Appellant was dissatisfied that (1) the Hospital did not confirm, whether orally or in writing, having received the wife’s consent to the collection of her personal data; (2) the Outreach Team did not introduce themselves or explain the reason for the home visit unequivocally, which led the wife to misapprehend that they were the outreach social workers from the Hospital and so she provided her personal data to them; (3) the Hospital incorrectly recorded how their son was admitted to the Accidental & Emergency Department of the Hospital in the wife’s medical record. The Appellant contended that their son took a taxi to the Hospital and was companied by the husband and was not taken by an ambulance as recorded in the report, and the Hospital refused to correct the relevant record.
The Appellant believed that the Hospital had contravened the PDPO and lodged a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.
The Privacy Commissioner’s Decision
Having considered all the available information, the Privacy Commissioner did not find any evidence of any contravention of the requirements of the PDPO and the primary subject matter of the complaint was not related to personal data privacy, and hence exercised discretion under sections 39(2)(ca) and (d) of the PDPO not to further investigate the Appellant’s complaint. Being dissatisfied with the Privacy Commissioner’s decision, the Appellant lodged an appeal to the AAB.
The Appeal
The AAB confirmed the Privacy Commissioner’s decision and dismissed the appeal on the following grounds:-
The AAB’s Decision
The appeal was dismissed.
(Uploaded in March 2024)