DELHI, INDIA – A cancer patient, Ritu Shah, 57, has died after her petition seeking access to a crucial life-saving drug was listed for hearing 57 times by the Delhi High Court but was not substantively heard. Shah, who was battling advanced non-small cell lung cancer, passed away on May 24, 2024, nearly nine months after her initial plea was filed.

Ms. Shah’s legal team had sought court intervention to facilitate her access to Pralsetinib, a targeted therapy drug recommended by her doctors as critical for her treatment. The petition, filed in August 2023, aimed to ensure the availability and affordability of the medication. Despite repeated mentions and efforts by her counsel to highlight the urgency of her deteriorating health, the case reportedly saw multiple adjournments and was frequently unable to reach a hearing.

The case has drawn attention to the challenges faced by critically ill patients navigating the judicial system in urgent medical matters. According to court records, Ms. Shah’s plea was listed before various benches of the Delhi High Court on 57 separate occasions. Despite these numerous listings, the core arguments of the petition regarding her access to treatment were not heard and decided upon before her demise.

  • Patient: Ritu Shah, 57 years old.
  • Condition: Advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
  • Drug Sought: Pralsetinib, a targeted therapy.
  • Court: Delhi High Court.
  • Petition Filed: August 2023.
  • Number of Listings: 57 times.
  • Date of Demise: May 24, 2024.

Legal experts have indicated that the incident underscores the broader issue of case management in Indian courts, particularly concerning petitions that involve fundamental rights such as the right to health and life. The prolonged delay in hearing an urgent medical case has prompted discussions within legal circles about mechanisms to fast-track matters of critical public or individual health importance.

The Delhi High Court had previously issued observations emphasizing the right to health as an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The outcome of Ms. Shah's petition highlights the practical difficulties patients can encounter in seeking timely judicial relief for medical emergencies. The legal fraternity and patient advocacy groups are expected to continue advocating for reforms in judicial procedures to prevent similar occurrences in the future, particularly for cases involving life-threatening conditions requiring immediate attention. The case remains a poignant reminder of the intersection between healthcare access and the timely delivery of justice.