Authority: ODPC - Kenya
Jurisdiction: Kenya
Relevant law: Section 2, 25, 44, 46(1) and 65(1), 65(4) of the Data Protection Act, 2019; Regulation 65(1) of the Enforcement Regulations; Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya
Type: Complaint
Outcome: Violation
Started: 12 February 2024
Decided: 11 May 2024
Published: Yes
Fine: KES.700,000
Parties: [N*** O***] vs. Halibut Pharmacy
Case No.: 0280 of 2024
Appeal: N/A
Original Source: ODPC
Original contributor: MZIZI Africa

Contents

  1. Summary
    1. Facts
    2. Holding
  2. Comment
  3. Further resources
  4. The Decision

Summary

Halibut Pharmacy breached the Complainant's privacy by including her medical diagnosis with a package that was sent to her based on an order she placed with the pharmacy.

Facts

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent incorrectly diagnosed her with an illness, which diagnosis was undertaken without consulting her primary doctor.

She also alleged that the wrong diagnosis bearing her personal details, insurance claim forms with similar information and the medications attached to it was handed over to a third party rider for delivery, who could access its contents. She provided photos of the package delivered to her which showed the documents attached on the outside of the package containing the medication.

The Complainant alleged that she contacted the Respondent's doctor to correct the wrong diagnosis, who promised to do so but still fowarded the forms containing the erroneous diagnosis to her insurance company.

The Respondent said that the Complainant and her family was their client for over 2 years. The Compainant placed an order for deliver to her address which was done in a sealed container. To facilitate reimbursement, the claim form and accompanying information was forwarded to the insurance company, Cigna.

The Respondent averred that the Complainant’s personal information was in the circumstances not exposed to third parties and those involved in the transaction were needed to process her claim. The Respondent did not provide any further information beside their statement made in responce to the claim.

The ODPC found that: