(1.) Plaintiff No.1 is the husband of the original Plaintiff No.2 who suffered from cancer and was consequently admitted to the hospital of Defendants 3 to 7 being the Trustees of Bombay Hospital Trust. Plaintiff Nos.2(a) and 2(b) are the heirs of the original Plaintiff No.2 who has since expired. Defendant No.1 was the Honorary Surgeon attached to Bombay Hospital (BH) and was the head of the department of Oncology. Defendant No.2 was the Honorary Assistant Surgeon who assisted Defendant No.1. The Defendant No. 3 was the Houseman in charge of the CT Scan department in BH.
(2.) The Plaintiffs' case is that the original Plaintiff No.2 suffered from cancer since July 1977. She was under the treatment of one Dr. J.C. Paymaster in BH up to 1988 when Dr. Paymaster retired from BH. She initially had breast cancer. She was operated upon for breast cancer in 1977. She thereafter suffered lung cancer in 1984. She was given the treatment of chemotherapy also under Dr. Paymaster in Mumbai. She was also treated for cancer in New York, USA in 1985. She was given hormonal therapy and chemotherapy treatment by certain two Doctors in New York, USA. It is the Plaintiffs' case that she was declared to be an inoperable case of cancer. In about 1987 she suffered cervical cancer. After receiving the aforesaid treatments she returned to Bombay. She had vaginal bleeding. Defendant No.2, who initially assisted Dr. Paymaster, knew her case. He advised her to be immediately hospitalized.
(3.) It is the Plaintiffs' case that Plaintiff No.1 then served as IAS Officer with the Government of Rajasthan. He admitted her to BH in first class. He desired the services of Defendant No.1 who had then stepped into shoes of Dr. Paymaster and was the head of Oncology department. He was informed that Defendant No.1 would separately charge his fees as per the schedule of BH and that other Doctors attached to Defendant No.1 will assist Defendant No.1 and will also charge fees according to the schedule of BH. The original Plaintiffs accepted and agreed to those terms. The Plaintiffs claim that consequently a valid contract was entered into between BH and the original Plaintiffs being Plaintiff No.1 and the original Plaintiff No.2.