The right to health is part of the right to life under Article 21, obligating the State and hospitals to provide necessary medical care without discrimination, while medical negligence claims must be substantiated with evidence.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Ms. Barbara Nunes as well as Mr. Thejangulie, the present Petitioners, who are present in person during the course of the hearing. I have also heard Mr. K.N. Balgopal, the learned Advocate General, Nagaland assisted by Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland appearing on behalf of the State of Nagaland and Mr. S. Abraham, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.

2. The Petitioner No. 1 is a citizen of India whereas the Petitioner No. 2 is a citizen of Portugal. Both the Petitioners claim that they are married to each other.

The Respondent No. 1 claims it to be a Hospital which was set up for the benefit of needy. The Respondent No. 1’s Hospital is set up in a plot of land leased out by the State of Nagaland.

3. Shorn of unnecessarily details, it is an admitted stand of the Petitioners in the writ petition that the Petitioner No. 2 had complication when she was pregnant. Resultantly, a premature baby was born on 13.10.2020. Various allegations have been made in the writ petition against the doctors and staff of the Respondent No. 1 that the treatment meted out to the child of the Petitioners was a case of negligence which led to the instable medical condition of the child. It is also alleged in the writ petition that exorbitant charges were levied upon the Petitioners which the Petitioners were compelled to pay. Be that as it may, on 21.12.2021 a bill amounting to Rs. 18,85,890/- was served upon the Petitioners and it is the allegation of the Petitioners that an ultimation was given to the Petitioners to make payment else the treatment would be stopped. It is under such circumstances, the present writ petition was filed arraying various parties which included the doctors and staff of the Respondent No. 1. It is relevant to take note of that when the writ petition was filed the Petitioner No. 1 was the sole Petitioner. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the reliefs claimed when the writ petition was filed. The reliefs sought are reproduced herein under:

“(a) Admit this petition.

(b) Issue direction to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to provide the complete set of medical records associated with the treatment of the Petitioner’s daughter ever since her birth, till date.

(c) Issue direction to conduct an independent inquiry into the negligence committed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at various occasions through the three admissions that the Petitioner’s daughter has been through ever since her birth and due to which she is looking a life of complete disablement and thereafter prepare a detail report and place it before this Hon’ble Court for further action and direction.

Issue direction to the Respondents to provide adequate compensation that would be required by the Petitioner and his family to take care of the baby after she is discharged as she would be completely dependent on her family, as well as to compensate the emotional, mental and physical trauma that the Petitioner and his family have had to go through because of the gross negligence committed by the Respondents.

(d) Issue direction to the Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 to take appropriate legal action against the Respondent No. 1,. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 for the gross medical negligence committed by them against the Petitioners daughter who is now completely disabled, and for the mental and emotional agony suffered by the Petitioner and his wife during the one year that their daughter has been admitted in the Respondent No. 1 Hospital.

(e) Issue direction upon the Re