Meena consulted Dr. Samira after suffering from severe abdominal pain for days. She was found to have developed ovarian tumours. Dr. Samira offered the opinion that the tumours could be fatal, and advised her to have them removed immediately. Acting under her advisement, Meena was admitted to Dr. Samira's nursing home the very same day. The surgery was carried out the next morning. After a few days, she was declared fit and thus, discharged from the nursing home. She was asked to return in two weeks for a follow-up examination.

Due to her busy work schedule, Meena could not visit Dr. Samira for the post-operative examination. A few weeks afterward, she started suffering from abdominal pains again, at which point she consulted Dr. Samira. She was diagnosed with gastritis and prescribed medication and a special diet. Meena's pain persisted.

She chose to get a second opinion from Dr. Kumar. Upon detailed tests and examinations, it was found that the tumour had not been fully removed in the first surgery. A small portion remined, for the removal of which a second surgery was conducted by Dr. Kumar.During the surgery, Dr. Kumar removed the remainder of the tumour, but also found a small piece of contaminated gauze in her abdomen.

Despite the second surgery being successful, Meena's immune system was weakened due to the multiple operative procedures. Her overall health continued to deteriorate and eventually, she passed away.

Consider whether Meena's surviving relatives can bring any claims against Dr. Samira under the Consumer Protection Act or under common law, for her conduct? In your answer, consider also whether there are any counter arguments that Dr. Samira could raise in her defense?

IRAC Method please