This time, Mehta's group did not have a proper presentation ready, unlike the previous cases where the

group was fully prepared with slides. Evidently, the passage of time had dampened the group's

enthusiasm. If the group were called on$,$ he would have to carry the group and hope that his teammates

would not embarrass him. In any case, his individual presentation would be lauded, but the anslysis

would be claimed as a group effort and not his own. $"$It will be alright," he convinced himself.

It was time for class and with unsteady breath he waited for his group's number to be called, his stomach

churning. The uncertainty always made him anxious. The group's preparation was not substantial; he

would have to say something remarkable, maybe by countering popular opinion. The number was called

and it was another group's turn. He turned towards his teammates and could see that they were visibly

happy and be beaved a sigh of relief. The group would be better prepared for the next part of the case.

After listening to the group's analysis, which was quite unlike his own, he waited for the individuals to be

called up on stage to give their own insights, and this time his turn was up$.$ Mehta approached the stage

with complete confidence; the stage always felt familiar to him and being the centre of attention came

naturally. The group's analysis was completely converse to his own and he would only need to counter

each statement with his own interpretation of the data and situation. He had already noted each point the

group had made.

Up on stage, he disputed the claims made by the group that had presented. He spelled out certain doom

for the hospital $-$ disclosure policies on safety should not be a major concern for a bospital, he dictated.

It was a business and the focus should be on making a profit. Having a policy on full disclosure of

medical errors would only harm the business due to negative publicity. He remembered how his professor

had said in the very beginning that there is no singular analysis for a case. He applied this lesson

meticulously, completely refuting the group's insights, knowing that even though be was unconvinced of

his own anslysis it could not be proven wrong. He recalled:

Though I wasn't convinced at all by the stand that I took, it was a matter of ego, as it happened

that both Anwar and Andrews had taken the stand that the hospital would succeed and at that

point I just wanted to show that there is another way of looking at it$.$ When it came down to

analyzing the case, I stuck to my guns. I thought that Children's Hospital would succeed $-$ in my

heart I wanted it to succeed $-$ but I wanted me to succeed more than the hospital. I wanted to

show up these two people in class.

Before the class ended, his view was broadly challenged by most of the class and he had no difficulty in

laying to rest their claims. As he came from a long lineage of doctors, he felt that he knew how the

medical system worked. He said:

My patemal grandfather was on the National Ayurvedic Advisory Board to the Prime Minister of

India, and my uncle had worked as a gastroenteritic surgeon in AIIMS. ${?}^2$ On the patemal side,

almost everybody has forayed into medicine and they know the ins and outs of medicine, and I$\text{'}$m

the only boy on the paternal side, so I tried to keep in touch with this heritage and am proud of

that lineage.

Still, Mehta seemed unnerved that most of the class had a view that was contrary to his own. At the end of

the session, the next case to be analyzed was circulated. As expected, it was a sequel to the current case

and seemed more challenging. It concerned the actual functioning of the hospital six years from the

adoption of the full$-$disclosure policy and focus on safety. He decided to stick to his point of view; he

could interpret the sequel from this perspective too. He recalled: