Facts
On May 29, 2001, Helsana Insurance Ltd. informed its insured X. that it intended to restrict the coverage of psychotherapy treatment to one session per week, instead of two as previously. This decision was contested by the insured. On September 13, 2001, Dr. A., Helsana's medical advisor, contacted Dr. [B.], a psychiatrist and external consultant, also acting as a medical advisor, by providing the insured's file in order to obtain his opinion on the indication, number of sessions and duration of the treatments. The insured's file was transmitted a second time, presumably on October 15, 2001, as the medical advisor wanted to know the possible outcome in case of an appeal. Dr. [B.] submitted two reports, on September 27 and October 24, 2001, concluding that there was no reason to exceed the scope of the planned benefits. By act of March 17, 2003, X. filed a complaint with the Federal Data Protection Commission, requesting in particular that the transmission of his file to Dr. [B.] be declared unlawful and that his reports be destroyed. The commission dismissed the appeal, considering that the transmissions of the file to Dr. [B.] were lawful, as the latter could be assimilated to an assistant of the medical advisor. X. filed an administrative appeal against this judgment, reiterating his conclusions. The Federal Tribunal dismissed the appeal.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal considered that the medical advisor, within the scope of his mission, could request the opinion of another specialized physician, called upon to rule on a question requiring particular expertise. Art. 84 K…