Jacaranda Maternity Hospital sued over foetus video shared on social media

On the evening of August 21, 2025, an expectant mother attended her routine prenatal check-up at Jacaranda Maternity Hospital.

For this story, we have changed her name to Jane for ethical purposes.

Jane underwent an ultrasound examination, which she said in her court papers was performed by a sonographer identified as Jepchumba Tanui.

The expectant mother further explained that the results indicated that the foetus had a cleft lip anomaly.

She said that, as usual, the images were captured both in still and motion, or video.

However, Jane claimed that the hospital only provided her with a printed image, but the hospital staff allegedly retained the video.

Her problem is not about retention of the video, but its usage.

“At no time during the examination, nor at any time thereafter while I remained within the hospital premises, was I informed that any video recording of my ultrasound examination would be extracted, retained for non-clinical purposes, shared externally, or disseminated outside the confidential medical record systems maintained by the hospital,” she stated.

Following the scan, she said, she remained behind to see a midwife, who was allegedly expected to explain to her the outcome and offer counselling regarding the findings.

Jane claimed that during the course of the interaction, one of the staff kept glancing towards her while in conversation.

“It made me feel uncomfortable and uneasy, although at that time I was unaware of the reason for the unusual attention,” she claimed, adding that later that same evening she saw a post published about a fetus that was around 22 weeks and 4 days of gestation.

For three days, Jane claimed that she saw a video on X, which was depicting her unborn baby.

According to her, the number of days corresponded with her pregnancy at the time of the ultrasound examination.

She asserted that the clip allegedly had the diagnostic features that matched the ultrasound, including the details of the machine that had been used.

She said that the post indicated that the hospital had allegedly identified its first cleft lip.

“The information disclosed in the said social media posts was therefore highly specific, contemporaneous and uniquely traceable to the ultrasound examination conducted on me at the second respondent's facility on August 21, 2025,” she claimed.

Jane sued Chepchumba, Jacaranda, and the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC).

She argued that the hospital is liable for the alleged patient’s privacy breach as the images could only be accessed by its staff.

At the same time, she said that the diagnosis generated personal data, which was allegedly put in the open to the public without her consent or involvement.

“In the premises, the 2nd Respondent bears responsibility for the acts and omissions of its employees and/or agents, including the failure to implement adequate safeguards to prevent unauthorized access, extraction and dissemination of sensitive patient data,” she argued.

To add salt to injury, she said, at the time the video was being posted online, she was allegedly unaware of the diagnosis.

She argued that there was no justification for such a move. Jane said that the hospital had expressed regret after she sent a demand letter.

She further said that she first lodged a complaint before the office of the Data Commission, but was told that KMPDC was the right forum.

Jane stated that the video had caused her distress and it could be a reason why she ended up delivering through caesarian section as an emergency to save both her life and that of her baby.

“Pregnancy and antenatal care represent deeply private and emotionally sensitive experiences, and the exposure of my unborn child's diagnosis to the public before I was properly counselled by medical professionals caused me significant distress. I continue to experience anxiety and emotional distress arising from the knowledge that deeply personal medical information concerning my pregnancy was disseminated to an indeterminate public audience through a digital platform beyond my control,” she said.

Jane wants the court to find that the hospital and the staff had violated her right to dignity, privacy and highest attainable standard of health.

At the same time, she wants the court to force them to delete the video and order KMPDC to investigate the issue.

Jane is also seeking compensation and a formal written apology.