The state has a constitutional obligation under Article 21 to ensure the right to life is protected by maintaining standards in medical care.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Reena N. Singh, learned counsel through video conferencing along with Sri Rana Singh and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Court, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

2. It is contended by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that Swaroop Rani Hospital, Prayagraj is under the administration of Chief Medical Superintendent and hence in the given facts of the case, he is a necessary party.

3. Petitioner is directed to implead forthwith the Chief Medical Superintendent of Swaroop Rani Hospital as fifth respondent in the petition.

4. Submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the mother of petitioner namely, Urmila was admitted to the Swaroop Rani Hospital and after pathological test, her blood group was found to be 'O' positive regarding which a document has been brought on record at page no. 20 of the paper book. It is next submitted that she went under the surgery by the surgeon of the hospital, however, the blood that was transfused to her in the post surgery care, turned out to be 'AB' positive, which was a serious medical lapse on the part of the doctors/medical officers attending the patient. It is further contended that it is on account of transfusion of mismatched blood that patient could not survive surgery and subsequently died. It is also contended that petitioner having got this information that the patient was transfused with mismatched blood, made a complaint before the authority and even after the death of the patient, complaint was made but no action was taken upon the complaint made by the petitioner. It is further contended that in such case of medical negligence, the department/administration officers of the hospital themselves ought to have taken action against erring medical officers and the staff but nothing was done and the petitioner was made run pillar to post to his utter harassment.

5. Considering the submissions so advanced and the documents brought on record, we consider it appropriate in the first instance to direct the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to obtain instruction from respondent nos. 1 and 5 and place the same before the Court on the next date fixed.

6. Let this matter be placed on board again on 6th November, 2025.

ORDER :

1. Ms. Reena N. Singh, Advocate (through video conferencing) and Shri Rana Singh, Advocate are present on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Instructions filed by the State is taken on record.

3. The State is requested to file the copy of the Aadhaar Card of the second patient Urmila, who was allegedly admitted in the same hospital for delivery or treatment related to pregnancy as is reflected in the blood requisition form of that patient. The State is also requested to bring on record all the original documents annexed along with instructions filed along with letter dated 16.11.2025 of the Principal-V.K. Pandey.

4. List this case on 28.01.2026, in top ten cases.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand requested to file a copy of the entire treatment papers related to the brain surgery of the deceased patient.

6. The instructions given by the State shall be placed in the sealed cover and kept in the custody of the Court itself.

ORDER :

1. We have heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned Additional Advocate General, Ms. Reena N. Singh, Advocate through video conferencing, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh and Sri Rana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Director General of Medical Education, U.P. a