JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)June 20, 1997

T-307 de 1997

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice José Gregorio Hernández Galindo

✓Claimant Samira Felfle Zallaquett

✓
Topic · hard data
Der. A La Vida. Medicina Prepagada. Inaplicabilidad De La Clausula Que Sustrae Del Servicio Enfermedades No Detectadas En El Contrato. Medisalud. Concedida.
01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

Contrato De Medicina Prepagada
  • Procedencia excepcional de tutela
  • Se comprometen derechos constitucionales fundamentales
  • Inaplicabilidad cláusula que sustrae enfermedad no detectada a su celebración
Acción De Tutela
  • Improcedencia general sobre controversias contractuales
Derecho A La Vida
  • Prestación de servicios médicos integrales
4 topics · 6 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

  1. Primero. REVOCAR el fallo proferido por el Consejo de Estado el 20 de febrero de 1997, que denegó el amparo. En su lugar, CONCEDER la protección del derecho a la vida de ELVIRA ALEXANDRE FELFLE. "Medisalud, Compañía Colombiana de Medicina Prepagada S. A." deberá prestar y suministrar de manera inmediata, todos los servicios a que se refiere el contrato de asistencia médica integral suscrito, con cargo al mismo, incluyendo atención médica, hospitalaria, quirúrgica y suministro los medicamentos que requiera la paciente.
  2. Segundo. Por Secretaría líbrense las comunicaciones de que trata el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.