Constructive res judicata bars renewed writ claims arising from previously adjudicated medical-treatment grievances.

The petitioner alleged that Ramkrishna Care Hospital administered Remdesivir to his mother without consent during her COVID-19 treatment in September 2020, and that she died on 2 October 2020.

He also complained of excessive treatment charges and alleged that the State authorities failed to conduct an inquiry despite inter-departmental communications directing one.

He sought a direction for a three-member specialist medical inquiry and appropriate action against the hospital.

The petitioner had previously filed writ petitions concerning the same treatment and death; in W.P.(C) No. 2375 of 2021, the Court had directed a refund of ₹24,000 in nursing charges while treating the remaining allegations as disputed factual questions.

Whether the petitioner could obtain a writ directing an administrative inquiry into allegations arising from the same treatment and death that had been the subject of earlier writ proceedings.

Whether the allegations of medical negligence, lack of informed consent and billing irregularities could be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226, particularly given the disputed facts and delay.

The Court applied the doctrine of constructive res judicata, which bars a litigant from re-agitating matters or grounds that were, or ought to have been, raised and settled in earlier proceedings concerning the same subject matter.

It also held that allegations requiring detailed medical evidence, expert testimony and cross-examination are generally unsuitable for summary adjudication under Article 226.

The Court identified civil courts, Consumer Redressal Commissions and authorities under the Chhattisgarh Nursing Homes Act as appropriate forums for such claims.

It further applied the principle that delay and laches may weigh against reopening matters already pursued in earlier proceedings.

Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2004 SC 4091, was cited in the respondent hospital’s submissions regarding disputed questions of medical negligence.

The Court found that the petition arose from the same underlying treatment and death addressed in the petitioner’s earlier writ petitions.

It considered the request for an administrative inquiry to be an attempt to reframe allegations already considered, and held that the earlier proceedings precluded their re-agitation.

Independently, determining whether Remdesivir was clinically appropriate or administered without consent would require detailed evidence and expert evaluation beyond the scope of summary writ proceedings; the petitioner could pursue any such claims before an appropriate forum.

The Court also considered the petition’s filing after the 2020 events and earlier proceedings to be affected by delay and laches.

No direction for a fresh inquiry or other relief was granted.