memorial for moot court, Exercises of Mock Trial and Moot Court

Download memorial for moot court and more Exercises Mock Trial and Moot Court in PDF only on Docsity!

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

TEAM CODE- SGTU

SHREE GURU GOBIND SINGH TRICENTENARY

UNIVERSITY 1st^ INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Under article 136 of the Indian Constitution

IN THE MATTER OF

PADMAVATHI

(APPELLANT)

V.

QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD AND ORS.

(RESPONDENT)

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND OTHER JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 22

INDEX OF CONTENTS

SERIAL NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5-

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-

ISSUES RAISED:

WHETHER THERE IS ANY MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

CONSTITUTING DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE

PART OF THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT,2019?

IS THERE ANY VOLITION OF THE RIGHT TO

INFORMED CONSENT OF THE PATIENT?

WHETHER THERE IS ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE

PART OF THE QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.? IF

NEGLIGENT, WILL THE PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS

LIABILITY BE ATTRACTED?

IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE

LIFE OF THE PATIENT GUARANTEED UNDER

ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12-

• Page 3 of
• 7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 14-
• 8. PRAYER

Page 4 of 22

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter & And Pvt. Private Govt. Government Hon’ble Honorable H.C High Court ICCU Intensive coronary care unit Ltd. Limited Ors. Others ICU Intensive care unit SCC/ SUPP Supreme Court Cases St. State S.C. Supreme Court RESP. Respondent Acc. According Art. Article Consti. Constitution PHC Primary Health care.

Page 5 of 22

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

JUDICIAL DECISIONS REFERRED

1. Laxman^ Balkrishna^ Joshi^ vs Trimbak^ Bapu^ Godbole^ And Anr.^1969 AIR^128
2. Joseph pappachan v. Dr. George Moonjerly 1994(1) KLJ 782
3. Aparna^ Dutta v.^ Apollo Hospital^ Enterprises LTD^1 2002 ACJ^ 954 Mad.^ H.C.
4. SMT. REKHA GUPTA V. BOMBAY HOSPITAL TRUST AND ANR. 1 2003(2)CPJ160(NCDRC)
5. Aparna Dutta v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises LTD

Page 6 of 22 Books Referred

1. Dr. R.K.Bangia, law of torts, 25th^ edition.
2. The consumer protection act 2019, the bare act.
3. Supreme court on drugs, medical laws medical negligence , by Surendra malik sudeep malik Statutes Referred
4. Consumer protection act, 2019.
5. The Constitution of India. Websites referred
6. Indian kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/ (9 Oct 2022)
7. Manupatra, https://www.manupatrafast.com/ (9 Oct 2022)
8. Legally India, www.legally.com (9 Oct 2022)
9. Ip leaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/ (9 Oct 2022)

Page 7 of 22

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE INDIA HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN

THE PRESENT APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE

INDIA.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions, and arguments in the present case.

Page 8 of 22

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. Ramasamy was 55 yrs. old and the father of two, working in a private concern, lives in the district of Madhuri in the state of Tamil Nadu.
2. In 2016-17 he was suffering from breathing problems for a period of 7 months intermittently. He consulted to dr. Manoj (respondent no.2) a govt. doctor, working in a PHC, prescribed him some tablets. Those tablets give relief to him for a short period of time. On and off he had the same complaints and he got treated at PHC.
3. The patient again suffered from the same problem after the passage of 4 months and he approached the PHC for the treatment but he did not get better. Dr. Manoj advised him to go to the govt. hospital for further treatment due to the lack of the facility available at the PCH. The patient went to dr. Ram Kumar (respondent no.3) is a doctor running a private nursing home. The doctor prescribed him some tablets and nebulization and asked him to take some tests (chest X-ray and blood test) and visit him again. He didn’t turn up for review and did not take any tests.
4. On 17-02-2018, the patient was taken to the QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. (respondent no.1) as he suffered severe breathlessness and chest discomfort. After some preliminary check-ups dr. Arun (respondent no.4) a cardiologist suggested several tests including ECG, chest X-Ray, blood tests, and Echocardiography. The tests reports showed that the patient suffered from myocardial infarction (heart attack) and he also has high blood sugar. The patient did not apprise dr. Arun, in the best interest of the patient, suggested for an angiogram to look for the blocks in the blood vessel. On performing an angiogram on 18-02-18, it was found that three major vessels in the heart had blocks ranging from 70% to 90%. Therefore, he referred the patient to the dr. David (respondent no.5) is a cardiothoracic surgeon.
5. On 20-02-18 the patient had undergone open-heart bypass surgery (CABG), the surgery lasted for 8 hours. The patient shifted to ICCU after 48 hours of surgery the patient shifted to the ICU and on 27-02-18 the patient shifted to the ward. On 01-03-18 the

Page 9 of 22 patient was

Page 10 of 22 discharged with cardiac supportive medication and asked to come for a review 10 days later. On 09-03-18, the patient developed pain, fever, and discomfort in the operated area and was taken back to the casualty of quick heal hospital.

6. The patient was admitted by respondent no.5’s assistant who was also a doctor, as respondent no. 5 had gone abroad for an international medical conference, the patient was informed about the surgical site infection. On 11-03-18 respondent no.5 saw the result of cultural sensitivity. On 12-03-18 respondent no.5 advised his assistant to start cefixime injection, the next day after the second dose of the injection the patient complained of mild itching near the injection site. The patient’s wife reported to the nurse at 11 pm and the nurse applied some ointment for relief
7. The next day at 8 am another dose of injection was given as instructed by the doctor. The patient complained of severe itching around 9 am over the injection site and his lips were swollen, after the diagnosis, it was a case of anaphylaxis (allergy) due to the antibiotic injection which can be commonly encountered and started on steroids. The patient died at 10:30 am on 14-03-18 due to the above complications.
8. On 03-07-18, the appellant PADMAVATHI (wife of the deceased) filed a CONSUMER COMPLAINT under the CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986 before the STATE COMMISSION against QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD and RESPONDENT NO. 2 to 5
9. The Commission found negligence on the part of the Respondents on the following grounds: (i) Not taking sufficient care while performing the surgery (ii) Diagnostic methods and not caring to ascertain the previous history of the patient (iii) Poor post- operative care; (iv) Delegating the case to a non-expert; (v) Violation of not obtaining informed consent without explaining allergic and other complications. So, the Commission directed that each Respondent has to pay Rs.10 Lakhs to the Appellant as the liability of the Respondents was joint and several. The Commission also awarded costs of Rs.10,000/-. However, the Commission did not find any justification for the claim of Rs.5 lakhs towards medical expenditure. THE STATE COMMISSION held that it was gross negligence on the part of respondent no. 1,4&5 resulting deficiency in service.

Page 11 of 22

10. The Appellant filed the appeal in THE NATIONAL COMMISSION on 07-04-20 seeking enhanced compensation of Rs.50 lakhs and the Respondents No.1, 4 & 5 filed the appeal on 14-04-20 seeking to set aside the order of THE STATE COMMISSION.
11. The National Commission allowed the appeal filed by Respondents No.1, 4 & 5 and dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant for enhancement of compensation on 08-06- 22 and held that there was no medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
12. The National Commission held that there was no negligence on the part of the Respondent. No.2. With regard to Respondent No.3, the National Commission held that he acted diligently and asked the patient to take some tests and to come for a review. But the patient did not turn up and take the tests as advised by respondent no.3.THE NATIONAL COMMISSION stated that there was no medical negligence on the part of respondents no. 4 and 5
13. On 10-08-22, the appellant filed a civil appeal in the SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

Page 12 of 22

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THERE IS ANY MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CONSTITUTING

DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019?

2. IS THERE ANY VOLITION OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMED CONSENT OF THE

PATIENT?

3. WHETHER THERE IS ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE QUICK HEAL

HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.? IF NEGLIGENT, WILL THE PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS

LIABILITY BE ATTRACTED?

4. IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE LIFE OF THE PATIENT

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

Page 13 of 22

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THERE IS ANY MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CONSTITUTING

DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT UNDER

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019?

It is humbly submitted by the Prosecution before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is medical negligence constituting deficiency in service on the part of the respondent under the consumer protection act, 2019 as there is a breach of duty to take care, a breach of duty to decide what treatment to give to the patient, And a breach of duty to decide the administration of treatment, and in the present case the respondents didn’t perform their duty properly which cause medical negligence on the part of the respondents. In the present case, the STATE COMMISSION found gross negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of respondent no. 1,4&5, but the STATE COMMISSION erred in finding the negligence on the part of respondents no. 2&3. II. IS THERE ANY VOLITION OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMED CONSENT OF THE PATIENT? It is humbly submitted by the prosecution before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is a volition of the right to informed consent of the patient as it is the right of the patient to receive proper information about the treatment including possible risks and complications, medical procedure, or treatment, but in the present case, management gave proper information neither to the patient nor to his family about the risks and the post-surgery side effects which cause infection to the patient near the surgical area, at the end which causes the death of the patient. III. WHETHER THERE IS ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.? IF NEGLIGENT, WILL THE PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY BE ATTRACTED? It is humbly submitted by the prosecution before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is negligence on the part of the QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD as the

Page 14 of 22 doctor of

Page 15 of 22 the hospital didn’t have the proper knowledge to identify the problem The patient’s suffering ultimately causes the death of the patient. When an employee breaches his duty in the course of performance of his duty as an employee, the liability of the employer arises for such breach of duty, there is a breach of duty to take care, a breach of duty to decide what treatment to give to the patient, And breach of duty to decide the administration of treatment on the part of the doctors who are the of the QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD who is the employer over here and it attracts the legal maxim “ Respondent superior” which means “let the principal be liable”. Hence there is negligence on the part of the QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. The principle of vicarious liability will be attracted in the present case because of the employer-employee relationship between the two, so the employer (QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.) will be liable for the breach of duty to take care, the breach of duty to decide what treatment to give, and the breach of duty to decide the administration of the treatment. Hence the principle of vicarious liability will be attracted here. IV. IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE PATIENT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA? It is humbly submitted by the prosecution before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is a violation of the right to life of the patient guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution of India as there is a breach of duty to take care of the patient by the doctors which violate the fundamental right to health of the patient. In the present case breach of duty to take care by the doctors cause the death of the patient, The Right to Protection of Life is one of the main objectives of Article 21, hence there is a violation of article 21.

Page 16 of 22

ADVANCE ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

1. THERE IS MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CONSTITUTING DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE

ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION

ACT,2019.

It is humbly submitted by the prosecution before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is medical negligence constituting deficiency in service on the part of the respondent under the consumer protection act, 2019 as the respondents didn’t perform their duty properly which cause medical negligence on the part of the respondents. It was well stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole and Anr.^1 That “The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give, or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.” Similarly, in the present case, there is a breach of duty to take care, a breach of duty to decide what treatment to give to the patient, and a breach of duty to decide the administration of treatment, by the respondents. In the present case, the STATE COMMISSION found gross negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of respondent no. 1,4&5. The Commission found negligence on the part of the Respondents on the following grounds: (i) It is the duty of the doctor to take proper care while performing the surgery but in the present case doctors didn’t take sufficient care while performing the surgery (ii) It is the primary duty of the doctors to ask patient previous history related to the problem then perform any treatment but here (^1 1969) AIR SC

Page 17 of 22 the doctors didn’t use proper diagnostic methods and not caring to ascertain the previous history of the patient (iii)It is the duty of the doctors to provide all the proper information related to the post-surgery side effects but here management gave proper information neither to the patient nor to his family about the risks and post-surgery side effects which let to Poor post- operative care; (iv) when the patient developed pain and discomfort in the operated area and was taken back to the Quick Heal hospital the patient was admitted by the resp.5’s assistant who was not an expert and treated the patient for four days, Delegating the case to a non-expert causes a breach of duty to decide the administration of treatment. The negligent act on the part of the respondents caused the death of the patient. Hence there is medical negligence constituting deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, therefore respondents are liable for their negligent actions.

Page 18 of 22 ISSUE 2

2. IS THERE ANY VOLITION OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMED CONSENT OF THE PATIENT? Right to informed consent means the right to be informed on diagnostic impressions, tests or investigations conducted, reports on results, estimated cost of services, proposed plan or procedures of therapy/treatment, short-term or long-term side-effects or implications of the treatment, prognosis, outcome, etc.^2 In the case at hand the patient after he developed pain, fever, and discomfort in the operated area, the treatment and medications of the patient were frequently altered without any information to the patient. The patient was already on gentamicin injection and when there was no improvement, Every patient has the right to control their health care. Informed consent is an inevitable requirement prior to every research involving a human being as the subject for treatment. 3 Ultimately, they make their own decisions regarding the procedures they undergo. It is the doctor’s responsibility to ensure that patients are fully informed about the medical care they receive however because patients typically lack medical training, their rights are protected by “informed consent.” This means patients cannot truly consent to a procedure until they know enough information about its risks and benefits to make an informed decision. In the case at hand, the doctors were aware of the side effects and allergies that can be commonly encountered due to antibiotic injections and changed the medications. In the case at hand, it was not a general routine treatment, the patient underwent open-heart bypass surgery which makes it a complex treatment. They neither obtained any informed consent from the patient nor informed the patient about the complications post-surgery and the allergic complications involved after undergoing open-heart bypass surgery. Respondent 5 failed to provide the patient with adequate information. This lack of information is a threat to a patient’s life and safety. The patient comes from a village in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. Usually, a layman is not aware of the medical procedures and training and potential risks and complications during and post- treatment and here it is the duty of the medical professional to inform the patient about the treatment/procedure he is undergoing. In Schoendorff v. New York Hospital Society it was held that “every adult human being has the right to decide what should be done with his body and the surgeon who conducts the procedure without his patient consent commits an assault for which he is liable for the injury.” 4 Informed consent is a process for obtaining permission or disclosure of personal information before performing a healthcare intervention on a person. A health care provider may ask a patient to agree to receive therapy (^2) Law insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/ (9 Oct 2022) (^3) Lokesh P. Nijhawan, Informed consent: Issues and challenges, national library of medicine, (09 Oct 2022)

Page 19 of 22 (^4) Schloendorff v. New York Hospital , 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914)

Page 20 of 22 before administering the therapy, or a clinical researcher may ask a participant in a clinical trial before enrolling that person. Informed consent is obtained from the fields of medical ethics and research ethics^5. In the case of the Salgo vs. Leland Stanford Junior University Board of Trustees (1957), it was held that doctors have an affirmative obligation to disclose information^6 The respondents didn’t even inquire about the previous treatment taken by the patient if any. It is also the duty of the medical professional to inquire about the medical history of the patient at the time of admission of the patient into the hospital. The facts also reveal that respondents 4 & 5 didn’t inquire if the patient had any allergies to any particular tablet, injection, ointment, etc. The previous treatment and medical history of a patient and the information about the medications he is allergic to, are one of the initial steps during the admission of the patient and play an eminent role in preparing the diagnosis by a medical professional. While at the case in hand, the performance of these initial and eminent steps is in absolute absence, which makes the medical professionals negligent on their part. Even if a patient consented to the surgery assuming the risk associated with treatment, it does not mean they have given up all their rights to receive an acceptable standard of care. A patient does not consent to the negligence of a medical professional. The patient was experiencing a persistent itching at the injection site, which is a common side effect of the injection cefixime, despite the fact the hospital staff was giving injection doses, ignoring the fact that it was a result of an allergic reaction to the injection Cefixime. Respondent 5 did not identify the type of infection the patient had and didn’t treat him with the right antibiotic and he failed to take the measures which could have prevented the risk of antibiotic resistance in the patient. The hospital staff did not monitor the vitals of the patient and as mentioned in the facts the patient suffered high sugar levels. The patient was hyperglycemic and was prone to infections post-surgery as having diabetes raises the risk of several types of infections. While the respondent completely ignored monitoring the blood sugar levels and vitals of the patient. When the health of the patient deteriorated drastically and after he developed severe pain and his lips and face were swollen, the duty doctor was informed and then he diagnosed the patient with anaphylaxis allergy. As per the facts, the patient had the symptoms of allergy to the antibiotic injections given by respondent 5. The injection of gentamicin and cefixime can cause aminoglycoside toxicity which can cause renal failure and vestibular damage. Here the doctor was ignorant and negligent made a mistake, and the patient paid for it at the cost of his life. The doctors did not inquire and monitored if the patient was hypersensitive to those antibiotics. The patient would not have had the treatment or would have had another course of treatment and diagnosis if he had known about the risks and would not, therefore, have suffered the loss. Respondent 5 was negligent in advising the patient about the risks. Also, Respondent 5 fails to obtain informed consent which is one of the most fundamental ethics in medicine and a human right (^5) Law insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/ (9 Oct 2022) (^6) Salgo vs. Leland Stanford Junior University Board of Trustees 154 C.A. 2d 560; 317 P. 2d 170. Califonria [sic; California]

Page 21 of 22 1957

Page 22 of 22 recognized under international law, therefore he has committed a crime and has liability for medical malpractice. Therefore the patient’s right to informed consent has been violated.

Page 23 of 22

ISSUE- 3

3. THERE IS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.

THEREOF THE PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY ALSO BE ATTRACTED.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the Quick Heal Hospital(resp.1) has liability for negligence on its part, as when Dr. David (resp.5) was out of the nation, his assistant treated the patient with the same medication for 2 days, when no positive response was observed, The hospital should’ve consulted the case with another senior doctor in the hospital and allergist. It was the hospital’s duty to take care of the administration of treatment. It was well stated by Kerala High Court in Joseph@ pappachan v. Dr. George Moonjerly^7 that “person who runs hospital are in law under the same duty as the humblest doctor”. Therefore, it is contended in the present case that wherever they accept the patient for treatment, they must use reasonable care and skill to ease of his ailment. Here Dr. David(resp.5) is negligent in his duty to take care in the administration of treatment as even after returning to his duty he took two days to analyze the condition of the patient and in deciding what treatment to give after returning back and analyzing the culture report he started the cefixime which did not give relief and next day, the patient complained of mild itching over the infection site, hence Quick Heal Hospital is vicariously liable for the doctor’s negligent act as stated by Madras High Court in the case of Aparna Dutta v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises LTD^8. It was the hospital that was offering the medical service, in case of any deficiency in medical service, also hospital can’t escape by saying that they don’t have a master-servant relationship same as said in the judgment of the national consumer redressal commission in case SMT. REKHA GUPTA V. BOMBAY HOSPITAL TRUST AND ANR.^9 (^7) 1994(1) KLJ 782 (^8 2002) ACJ 954 Mad. H.C. (^9) 2003(2)CPJ160(NCDRC)

Page 24 of 22

4. THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE PATIENT

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as acc. to the Art.- 21 of the Constitution of India “No person shall be deprived of his/her life or personal liberty except acc. to the procedure established by law.” Life in Art.- 21 of the Constitution Isn’t just the physical demonstration of breathing. It doesn’t imply insignificant creature presence or proceed with drudgery through life. It has a lot more extensive importance which is incorporate the right to live with human nobility, the right to livelihood, the right to health, the right to pollution-free air, and so forth. In the state of Punjab v. M.S Chawla^10 , it has been held that “the right to life” is insured under Art.- 21 incorporates inside its ambit the right to health and clinical consideration”. Yes. there is a violation of the right to life of the patient guaranteed under Art.- 21, as in the present case, the patient had suffered problem/ difficulty in having the right diagnosis and treatment from the beginning, as mentioned in the facts that patient was suffering from breathing issues and consulting to PHC where the doctors didn’t diagnose him correctly also they were giving him the same treatment for months without knowing the course of the problem the patient was suffering from as mentioned in the facts that while with having no sufficient means Dr. Manoj (resp.2) were treating him. While widening the scope of the Art.- 21 & govt. responsibilities to provide medical aid to every person in the country proper and right. Art.-21 imposes an obligation on the St. to safeguard the right to life of every person in the govt. hosp. and public health centers run by the St. are bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life, which is lacking in the present case, failure on the part of a govt. hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Art.-21 as stated in the case Paschima Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Ors. V. St. of W.B & anr.^11 Hence the respondents should, therefore, be suitably compensated for the breach of his right guaranteed under Art.- 21 of Consti. Of India, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Also, with regard to respondents no. 4 & 5, the treatment and diagnostic methods were certified by a team of experts and they were according to medical jurisprudence & standards of medical practice and hence, there was no deviation from it. the infection and allergic reactions are common for such types of cases which could not be held to be a medical error. despite that, respondents no. 4&5 tried their best. “Merely because the case resulted in the death of the (^10) AIR1997SC 1225

Page 25 of 22 (^11) (1996) AIR SC 2426