29. Ms. Trehan stated that thereafter, however, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India when deciding a challenge to the constitutionality of a contributory medical scheme for ex-servicemen in the case of Confederation of Ex-servicemen Assns. (supra) had held, "....No State has unlimited resources to spend on any of its projects. Provisions relating to supply of medical facilities to its citizens is not an exception to the said rule. Therefore, such facilities must necessarily be made limited to the extent finances permit. No right can be absolute in a welfare State. An individual right has to be subservient to the right of public at large. She pointed out that Supreme Court had concluded by observing, "We, therefore, hold that getting free and full medical facilities is not a part of the fundamental right of ex-servicemen". 30. Ms. Trehan further stated that the Courts in the United Kingdom had also had the opportunity to examine this issue. In the case of R.V. Cambridge Health Authority Ex pare B (A Minor) [1995] EWCA Civ 49, where the treatment for a child suffering from non-Hodgkins Lymphoma had failed and treatment that was considered experimental was sought under the National Health Service of the UK, the Court refused to intervene while acknowledging the strain on resources and that the question of allocation of resources was a policy decision observed that, "Difficult and agonising judgments have to be made as to how a limited budget is best allocated to the maximum advantage of the maximum number of patients. That is not a judgment which the Court can make". The Court concluded that, "I have no doubt that in a perfect world any treatment which a patient, or a patient's family, sought would be provided if Doctors were willing to give it, no matter how much it cost, particularly when a life was potentially at stake. It W.P.(C) 7279/2013 Page 16 of 41