JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)October 15, 1996

T-533 de 1996

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 Maria Praenza Ruiz Lopez

✓
Topic · hard data
Der. A La Salud. Der. A La Seguridad Social. Preexistencias. Colsanitas. 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.

Empresa De Medicina Prepagada
  • No autorización intervención quirúrgica
Vigilancia Administrativa
  • No desplaza la tutela
Contrato De Medicina Prepagada
  • Procedencia excepcional de tutela
Medio De Defensa Judicial Ineficaz
  • Intervención quirúrgica
5 topics · 5 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. REVOCASE la sentencia proferida por el Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial, Sala de Familia de Santa Fe de Bogotá el día seis de junio de 1996, al resolver en segunda instancia sobre la acción de tutela interpuesta por la señora MARIA PRAENZA RUIZ LOPEZ contra la "Compañía de medicina prepagada SANITAS S.A." y, en consecuencia, conceder la protección solicitada.
  2. Segundo. ORDENASE a la empresa demandada que, en el término máximo de cuarenta y ocho (48) horas, contado a partir de la notificación de este fallo, autorice, si ya no lo hubiese hecho, la cirugía programada a la señora María Praenza Ruiz y adelante los trámites que sean necesarios para que la intervención quirúrgica se realice en el menor tiempo posible con cargo al contrato de medicina prepagada suscrito entre las partes.
  3. Tercero. Por Secretaría líbrese la comunicación 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.