JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)September 21, 1998

T-512 de 1998

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

Reporting justice Vladimiro Naranjo Mesa

✓Claimant Enrique Velosa Perdomo

✓
Topic · hard data
Der. A La Vida Y A La Salud. Enfermedad Congenita. No Atencion Por Colpatria S.A. Medicina Prepagada. Hernia Inguinal De Menor. 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
  • Excepción a cobertura no puede plantearse de manera general
  • Exclusión de preexistencias previa, expresa y taxativamente
  • Necesidad de especificar malformaciones o anomalías congénitas
2 topics · 4 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.

See the operative part (3 points)
  1. Primero. REVOCAR la providencia dictada por la Sala de Decision Civil del Tribunal Superior de Santafe de Bogota D.C., el 6 de mayo de 1998, que denego la accion de tutela iniciada por Enrique Velosa Perdomo en contra de Salud Colpatria S.A., Medicina Prepagada.
  2. Segundo. TUTELAR el derecho constitucional fundamental a la vida del menor Daniel Felipe Velosa Garcia. En consecuencia, se ordena a la entidad demandada que, en el termino de las cuarenta y ocho (48) horas siguientes a la notificacion de esta sentencia, autorice la cirugia recomendada por el medico a cargo de la enfermedad del menor, esto es, la herniorrafia inguinal bilateral, que debera practicarse, a mas tardar, dentro de los quince (15) dias calendario siguientes al momento en que sea autorizada.
  3. Tercero. LIBRESE por la Secretaria General de esta Corporacion, la comunicacion de que trata el articulo 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.