after considering her condition she was flown to AIIMS, New Delhi. The petitioner contends that because of the accident which happened in the MRI room the injury aggravated and she developed complete paraplegia. The document would suggest that after the incident when she was taken to Delhi and was admitted to AIIMS, New Delhi on 13.09.2014, there in the diagnoses filed as Annexure R-2 shows that at time of admission, she was having paraplagia means 'paralysis of both the legs'. The respondent has filed the submission memo with affidavit of Doctor wherein it is stated that because of the MRI accident, the injury of the petitioner did not aggravated to worst and she had the injury of paraplegia from the earlier date itself due to initial accident. This part of the submission as to whether because of the accident in MRI room, the injury aggravated requires to be deliberated after the evidence of the experts are adduced from both sides in petitioner and respondent before the competent Court. To arrive at a finding as to whether the existing injury aggravated from monoplegia to paraplegia is required to be proved before competent Court. Such finding can be arrived at after the witnesses are examined in detail and are also cross examined. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into to make a roving enquiry to find out the impact of MRI accident and impact of it on existing injury. This is more so because contradictory statements have come from both the petitioner and the respondent. It appears that the petitioner may have to pass through another bout of litigation to substantiate those facts before the Court in other duly constituted case.
