However, the Respondents deny any negligence on their part and state that the hospital was equipped with wheelchairs, stretcher, and nursing orderlies. 6. The instant matter clearly involves disputed questions of fact, which are not amenable to resolution through instant writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is settled law that when a petition raises disputed questions of facts, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1 particularly so, in cases where tortious liability and negligence is involved.2 The determination of medical negligence involves intricate questions of fact which are unsuitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction. This view was reaffirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Kamla Devi v. Union of India & Ors.3 In light of the above, this Court is mindful of the delicate balance required when handling allegations of medical negligence. Therefore, the second prayer sought in the present petition, cannot be granted. The Petitioner shall be free to take recourse to appropriate civil remedy available in cases of Negligence or any other remedy as available under law, in case the Petitioner were to seek compensation from the State for the loss of life of the Petitioner’s wife.
