$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1574/2025 PREETI NISHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Shukla, Mr. Vivek Kumar Gaurav, Mr. Abhay Solanki, Mr.Shawaz Chaudhary, Mr. Kartik Srivastava and Mr. Umesh Vishnoi, Advocates.

versus METRO HOSPITAL PREET VIHAR AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar Dubey and Mr.

Ram Sewak Kumar Shah, Advocates for R-1.

Mr.T. Singhdev, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Yamini SIngh and Mr. Vedant Sood for R-NMC CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 23.02.2026

1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-

“1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s directing the Respondent to perform their statutory duty by provide the medical treatment documents/reports of deceased Munni Devi(mother of the Petitioner), to the Petitioner in favour of the Petitioner/Preeti Nisha, and/or:

2. Direct the Respondent No. 2/ National Medical Commission to take action as per law against the Respondent No. 1/ Metro Hospital, Preet Vihar for Violating the Statutory duty as prescribed by the Respondent No. 2, vide its Professional Conduct, Etiqutte and Ethics) Regulation, 2002. and/or:

3. Pass any such order or direction as it deems fit in the facts of the present case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case would indicate that the mother of the petitioner namely Ms. Munni Devi was admitted to Metro Hospital, Delhi, Preet Vihar (‘Metro Hospital’). On 18.07.2022, she was discharged from Metro Hospital with a 10-day medication prescription. Again on 28.07.2022, she was admitted to Yashoda Hospital, Kaushambi and was diagnosed with Chronic liver disease etc. Ultimately, on 04.08.2022, she passed away during her treatment in Yashoda Hospital. Thereafter, on 28.02.2023, the petitioner has approached the concerned officials of the Metro Hospital and asked for the medical documents of her deceased mother along with the report of the CT Scan and the petitioner was assured that the same would be provided.

3. On 12.08.2023 again, the petitioner went to Metro Hospital for the medical record of her deceased mother, the concerned officials again assured her that they will provide the same as soon as possible. On 27.01.2024, the concerned officials advised the petitioner to collect the documents after 5-6 months. Thereafter, after six months, when the petitioner went to the Metro Hospital, the officials apprised that the Hospital could not provide the CD of CT Scan report and Daily Prognosis report and with regard to the medical documents, the Hospital would provide the same within 2-3 months. On 15.11.2024, the concerned officials of the said Hospital stated that the Hospital could only provide the ultrasound report and could not provide the CD of CT Scan and Daily Prognosis report.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner has sent three reminders on 07.01.2025, 20.01.2025 and 27.01.2025 respectively through speed post with regard to providing the complete medical documents of the deceased, but the officials of Metro Hospital has failed to provide the same. The petitioner submits that as the necessary documents/reports have not been supplied, therefore the petitioner is unable to take necessary remedy before the competent Court/

Forum. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. After hearing the learned counsel, the Court was of the prima facie view that the petitioner ought to agitate its grievance before the Court/Authority which would be seized of the substantive lis. A petitioner must not to be permitted to bifurcate reliefs and seek them from different fora. If an action was to be filed before, for instance, the Civil Court, which was to adjudicate upon the broader controversy between the parties, the present reliefs, which are incidental and ancillary also should be prayed for from the same Court. In such a scenario, it would appear impermissible to maintain a writ petition, a cause of action