Any act or omission by a healthcare professional that deviates from the accepted standards of practice and results in harm to the patient.

Any act or omission by a healthcare professional that results in harm to the patient, regardless of whether it deviates from the accepted standards of practice.

Any act or omission by a healthcare professional that is negligent and results in harm to the patient.

Any act or omission by a healthcare professional that is intentional and results in harm to the patient.

Duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages.

Duty of care, breach of duty, and damages.

Duty of care, causation, and damages.

Breach of duty, causation, and damages.

The accepted standards of practice in the relevant medical community.

The standards of care set forth in the Medical Council of India (MCI) guidelines.

The standards of care set forth in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The standards of care set forth in the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

The plaintiff must prove that the healthcare professional breached the duty of care, that the breach of duty caused the patient's injuries, and that the patient suffered damages as a result of the injuries.

The defendant must prove that the healthcare professional did not breach the duty of care, that the breach of duty did not cause the patient's injuries, or that the patient did not suffer damages as a result of the injuries.

The plaintiff must prove that the healthcare professional breached the duty of care and that the patient suffered damages as a result of the breach of duty.

The defendant must prove that the healthcare professional did not breach the duty of care.

The healthcare professional did not breach the duty of care.

The breach of duty did not cause the patient's injuries.

The patient did not suffer damages as a result of the injuries.

All of the above.

Damages.

Injunction.

Specific performance.

All of the above.

Three years from the date of the injury.

Two years from the date of the injury.

One year from the date of the injury.

Six months from the date of the injury.

The limitation period is extended to six years from the date of the injury.

The minor can file the claim through their legal guardian.

The minor is not required to prove damages.

All of the above.

The limitation period is extended to four years from the date of the injury.

The elderly patient can file the claim through their legal guardian.

The elderly patient is not required to prove damages.

None of the above.

An increase in the number of medical malpractice claims.

An increase in the size of medical malpractice awards.

A shift towards more patient-centered litigation.

All of the above.

The high cost of litigation.

The lack of access to legal aid.

The shortage of qualified medical malpractice lawyers.

All of the above.

Introducing a no-fault compensation system.

Capping medical malpractice awards.

Creating a specialized medical malpractice court.

All of the above.

It is likely to continue to grow in popularity.

It is likely to become more patient-centered.

It is likely to become more affordable.

All of the above.

Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (1995).

Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre (1998).

Pooja Devi v. Union of India (2002).

All of the above.

The high cost of litigation.

The lack of access to legal aid.

The shortage of qualified medical malpractice lawyers.

All of the above.