Start with the patient, record holder and requester’s authority. Patients can seek inspection, copies and correction through the applicable process, but paying for services does not create automatic access to another patient’s complete history. Separate the child’s and each adult’s information. This guide covers written requests, scope, redaction, correction and refusal without treating a medical file as a final determination of parentage or nationality.
Legal support for this matter: Medical Negligence Claims
Start by identifying whose record it is
A single surrogacy-related folder may contain one adult's examination, another patient's treatment record, the child's medical history and the payer's receipt. These materials do not share one access rule. Identify whose particular record is needed and for what purpose. Payment does not create unrestricted access to another person's health information, and calling something 'our programme file' does not change the patient's identity.
Article 17 of the Law on Patient Rights provides a basis for inspecting records, seeking copies and requesting correction under its conditions. Access by relatives or legal representatives depends on the patient's consent or young age and the relevant legal role. Instead of treating all participants as one group, list the patient, holder, requester, authority basis and required document. Resolve any unknown entry first. This reduces the risk of an overbroad request, avoidable refusal or accidental receipt of someone else's confidential information. The guide does not determine a particular child's parentage or eligibility for a surrogacy arrangement.
Official sources: Law on Patient Rights · Law on Personal Data Protection
Find the actual record holder
An agency may collect clinic updates without holding the full official medical record. A clinic, laboratory and other provider may create different documents. Identify the author and holder of each. An agency summary, screenshot or translation is not automatically a complete history or official copy. That distinction matters for continuing care and for legal or administrative use.
Map what should exist, who created it, who holds it and which version you possess. 'The complete file' can mean different things to different people. Specify the period and type, such as consent forms, issued reports or service entries, without unnecessary clinical detail at the initial stage. If records were transferred elsewhere, ask who received them. This guide does not assert that every conceivable internal document must exist or be disclosed immediately. The purpose is accurate identification of existing material so the request reaches the appropriate holder. Keep the agency's coordination notes distinct from records created by the provider itself.
Official sources: Law on Patient Rights · Law on Personal Data Protection
Document the requester’s authority
When patients request their own records, the institution needs appropriate information to verify identity. A request by someone else needs the relevant representation basis and, where required, patient consent. Civil Code Articles 103–107 supply the general representation framework, while the special patient-rights rules also apply to medical information. A broad phrase such as 'conduct all matters' does not necessarily answer whether particular records may be disclosed.
Describe the purpose, recipient and necessary scope clearly in the authority or consent. Ask the clinic what form of proof and translation it needs. Supply identification through a secure channel without circulating unnecessary details. If representation changed, ensure the old address is no longer used and the new authority is established. Designating an information recipient and granting transaction powers may involve different documents. Reconciling them avoids approaching the right institution with the wrong legal basis and helps it identify the material it can properly release.
Official sources: Law on Patient Rights · Civil Code: representation
Treat the child's record as a separate file
For a child's record, first establish who represents the child for the relevant matter. Evidence of birth, the legal basis of parentage and the authority of a particular representative perform different functions. An agency contract or receipt does not automatically answer these questions. If documents are pending or names differ, explain the precise situation to the clinic and ask what supporting evidence is needed.
Article 17's provision concerning young children does not allow any adult providing care to obtain the complete file. The request needs appropriate authority and attention to the child's interests. A child's record may also include another person's health information, requiring separate consideration of scope and redaction. Seeking information needed for the child should not become a demand for another adult's entire history. Nationality, first travel documents and household registration in China are separate decisions; releasing a clinic record does not determine them. Conflicting adult claims require case-specific assessment and secure communication.
Official sources: Law on Patient Rights · Civil Code: representation
Write a precise request
Article 17 requires a written request to inspect or obtain copies. A concise request can state your role, sufficient secure patient identification, period, document types and preferred secure response channel. Attach the authority basis and provide a contact for clarification. This is a practical structure, not a mandatory universal clinic template.
Specify whether you want inspection, a copy, an extract or a certified version of an existing document. Avoid demanding every item concerning every patient. If you lack the file number, provide another adequate and secure way to locate the records. Explaining the intended use can help identify the format but cannot create access rights to another person's data. Retain the request, attachment list and delivery evidence. Confirm significant telephone explanations in writing, especially changes to scope. If the institution supplies its own form, check for unrelated broad consent or waiver provisions rather than assuming every extra clause is needed to obtain your records.
Official sources: Law on Patient Rights · Law on Personal Data Protection
Specify usable copies and provenance
Receiving a copy means more than receiving an unexplained file. The material should make clear what it is, whom it concerns and which pages were supplied. Ask for a list of issued documents, dates and scope. Blurred photographs or cropped pages may be unusable for later review. Do not assume a right to take the original where the entitlement concerns copies; the institution may need to retain its primary record.
If another doctor or authority needs the material, ask that recipient about format beforehand. An extract useful for one purpose may be insufficient for another. Request readable copies or a usable electronic file and clarify its coverage. Identify specific missing documents or periods when the response is incomplete. Patient access does not automatically establish entitlement to every internal audit log, employee note or third-party file. Such requests may need separate grounds. Preserve provenance and page order for later translation, legal assessment or correction.
Official sources: Law on Patient Rights · Law on Personal Data Protection
Use proportionate redaction for other people's information
A document may contain health, contact or identification data about several people. Articles 27–28 of the Law on Patient Rights address confidentiality and disclosure grounds, alongside the personal-data framework. The institution may need to redact portions or prepare an extract. Not every redaction is an unlawful refusal, but a generic assertion of confidentiality does not answer a patient's properly framed request for their own record.
If an important portion is withheld, ask what category was restricted and whether the needed fact can be confirmed another way. A service date, for example, may be confirmed without disclosing another patient's detailed history. Discuss that option against the recipient's actual need. Redaction should not misleadingly suggest that the document originally had different contents. Keep the supplied version, page count and explanation. Do not try to defeat redaction technically or enter another person's account. Where withheld material is necessary for a dispute, discuss a lawful evidence route with a lawyer.
Official sources: Law on Patient Rights · Law on Personal Data Protection
Seek correction while preserving the audit trail
First classify an alleged error: a name, date or factual description may differ from disagreement with a clinician's assessment. Both can merit review, but not necessarily the same remedy. Identify the page, existing text, requested clarification and supporting document. Do not demand rewriting the entire history merely to match another application's form.
Article 17 requires preservation of both the earlier information and the newly supplied information when a correction is made. Seek a transparent amendment or addition. Retain the request, response and updated version. If an earlier copy went to another doctor or authority, establish whether and how to send the correction with a clear link between versions. An error in translation does not establish that the original record is wrong; compare the source. If dates differ across documents, do not choose the convenient one without evidence. Ask the relevant author to explain the discrepancy. Preserving the original entry protects the reliability of the evidential history.
Official sources: Law on Patient Rights · Law on Personal Data Protection
Prepare for a Chinese recipient without over-sharing
If a doctor, lawyer or authority in China needs the record, identify the particular recipient and document first. A short clinic certificate, complete history and translated extract are not interchangeable. Obtain the recipient's written requirement and show the clinic only what is necessary to clarify the format. Obtaining medical records does not itself resolve nationality, parentage or foreign recognition.
Preserve the author, date, page relationships and source of uncertain terminology in translation. Do not add conclusions absent from the record. For an overseas disclosure, assess the legal basis, recipient and safeguards separately; access to a copy is not unrestricted permission for anyone to circulate it internationally. Avoid passport numbers or a full diagnosis in filenames when a neutral identifier works. Agree secure transmission, purpose and onward-sharing limits with the recipient. A group-chat upload can reach people with no role in the matter. Limited, accurate and necessary material also makes subsequent review more manageable.
Official sources: Law on Patient Rights · Law on Personal Data Protection
Respond to delay, partial disclosure or refusal
For delay, first verify receipt, the correct addressee and authority documents. The clinic may be checking identity or separating material concerning different patients. Request a written explanation of what remains missing and when to expect the next response. The applicable statutory period and any exception need checking against the particular request; this guide does not promise one delivery date for every record and institution.
If the request is handled as a data subject’s access request under Article 14 of the Personal Data Protection Law, the general limit is ten working days from the request unless another law provides a different period. Exceptional, properly justified circumstances permit an extension of up to ten further working days, with immediate notification. The same article provides copies without charge subject to defined exceptions, including a statutory fee or a justified reasonable resource charge for a different format or request frequency. Ask for the specific legal basis of any fee or extension rather than assuming either is unrestricted.
For partial disclosure, compare the response with your original list. For refusal, request the basis and consider clarifying scope, supplying authority or accepting a suitable extract. The Law on Patient Rights also provides a court route. The current Georgian data-protection text identifies the State Audit Office as the relevant supervisor; verify its current submission procedure and competence before filing. Data-protection, patient-rights and civil-dispute routes differ. A complaint neither guarantees compensation nor automatically suspends another deadline. Preserve the complete exchange so a reviewer can identify the request, response and outstanding issue.
Official sources: Law on Patient Rights · Law on Personal Data Protection
Hypothetical example: narrowing an overbroad request
In a fictional example, a payer in China asks the agency for 'the full medical histories of everyone in the programme' because fees are disputed. The agency says the clinic will not release them. This account leaves unknown whose records are involved, what authority the payer has and which document is actually needed to examine the price. Separate the request's purpose and legal basis first.
The payer may need their contract, invoice and confirmation that a particular service occurred, while another adult's detailed history may be unnecessary. That patient can seek their own record personally or through an appropriate representative. Any child's document requires a separate authority check. A lawyer can identify the minimum evidence needed for the disputed fact and a lawful way to obtain it. This does not guarantee disclosure or justify every redaction; the documents and rights must be examined. The example illustrates why a focused request is often more useful than demanding unlimited access in the name of a financial dispute.
Official sources: Law on Patient Rights · Civil Code: representation · Law on Personal Data Protection
Check the response and prepare for review
On receipt, compare patient identity, author, period, page count and requested categories. Check that another person's information was not sent by mistake. If it was, stop onward circulation and contact the sender securely to resolve it. Create a working copy while preserving the original file unchanged. Identify the source underlying every translation or summary; a later analysis is not the original medical record.
For legal review, prepare a short chronology of request and response, document inventory and specific concern: refusal, incompleteness, authority or correction. An initial Advokato message can provide that description without the complete history. Do not upload a child's DNA report, passport or full medical file through a public form. Agree secure transfer of necessary material later. Receiving records does not prove negligence, entitlement to compensation or a favourable foreign decision. Source checking supports preparation; the outcome depends on authority, facts and the relevant institution's or court's assessment. An orderly file helps identify the next step without promising the result.
Official sources: Law on Patient Rights · Law on Personal Data Protection
Important noteThis material is general information, not personalised legal advice. Recheck current law, official practice, fees and deadlines against your facts before acting.