Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
IN THE MATTER OF
VERSUS
SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
• TABLE OF STATUTE
• WEBSITES
• BOOKS
TABLE OF CASES 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
STATEMENTS OF FACTS 7
ISSUES 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11
PRAYER 19
5. Hon’ble Honorable
6. Vs. Versus
7. Ors. Others
8. SCC Supreme Court Cases
9. Vol. Volume
10. Sec. Section
TABLE OF STATUTES
WEBSITES
1) www.indiankanoon.org
2) Livelaw.com
3) Lawfinderlive.com
4) www.reasearchgate.net
5) www.vakilno1.com
The National Commission has the jurisdiction to try the instant case which states that-
Jurisdiction of the National Commission. — Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the
National Commission shall have jurisdiction—
(a) To entertain—
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds
rupees one crore; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending
before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National
Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally or with material irregularity.
1. That Mrs. Sangeeta and Mr. Atul were married in the year 2008 and resided in Saleli village
in Sattari.
2. That Sangeeta was unable to conceive a child. The couple was however optimistic and
prayed to God for a miracle.
3. That On 30 August 2018, Sangeeta was admitted in the govt. maternity hospital Sakhali in
goa. Against the normal gestation period of 38-40 weeks, she delivered a premature a
female baby in the 29th week of pregnancy.
4. That the baby weighed only 1250 Gms at birth. The infant was placed in an incubator in
intensive care unit for about 25 days. The baby was administered 90-100% oxygen at the
time of the birth and underwent blood exchange transfusion a week after birth.
5. That the baby had apneic cells during the first 10 days of her life.
6. That She was under the care of Dr. Dinesh Teli Neopaediatrician and head of department
of neo Natology unit and Dr. Mahesh Naik, a Doctor at the hospital which is established
and run in the state of Goa.
7. That the mother and the baby were discharged on 23rd September, 2018.
8. That The discharge card summary reads as follows-
Mother confident; informed about the alarmed signs:
• To continue breast feeding
• To attend post-natal O.P. on Tuesday
9. That However, the mother and the baby visited the hospital on 30th October, 2018 at the
chronological age of 9 weeks.
10. That the follow up treatment was also administered by Dr. Mahesh Naik at their residence
during home visits.
11. That the baby was under his due care 4-13 weeks of chronological age the only advice
given by Dr. Naik was to keep the baby isolated and confined to the four walls of the sterile
room so that she could be protected from infection.
The main defence is against the appellant’s claim for compensation that at the time
of delivery and management, no deformities were manifested and the
complainant was given proper advice, which was not followed. Therefore, the
respondent is not liable for compensation of medical negligence.
-Memorial
on behalf of Respondent- Page 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Commission that the Respondent should be
discharged of charge of medical negligence defined u/s 2(g) of the consumer protection
Act, 1986. It states that-
In the present case medical negligence is covered within the ambit of the above definition
of deficiency. Negligence per se is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary. Importing from
the same “conduct, whether of action or omission, which may be declared and treated as
negligence without any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circumstances,
either because it is in violation of statute or valid municipal ordinance or because it is so
palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation
or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. As a general rule, the violation
of a public duty, enjoined by law for the protection of person or property, so constitutes.”
In Bhalchandra @ Bapu & Another v. State of Maharashtra1, the Supreme Court opined
that while negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided
upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would
do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do; criminal
1
AIR 1968 SC 1319
2
ARTICLE “IMPORTANT MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES IN INDIA” ON IPLEADERS BLOG.
In the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Another3, the Supreme Court while
dealing with the case of negligence by professionals also gave illustration of medical and
legal profession and observed as under:
“In the law of negligence, professionals such as lawyers, doctors, architects and others
are included in the category of persons professing some special skill or skilled persons
generally. Any task which is required to be performed with a special skill would generally
be admitted or undertaken to be performed only if the person possesses the requisite skill
for performing that task. Any reasonable man entering into a profession which requires a
particular level of learning to be called a professional of that branch, impliedly assures
the person dealing with him that the skill which he professes to possess shall be exercised
and exercised with reasonable degree of care and caution. He does not assure his client
of the result. A lawyer does not tell his client that the client shall win the case in all
circumstances. A physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A
surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be
beneficial, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. The only assurance
which such a professional can give or can be understood to have given by implication is
that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practising
3
(2005) 6 SCC 1
In Kusum Sharma & Ors vs Batra Hospital &Medical Research5, the Supreme Court
enumerated the following principles to be followed while deciding whether medical
professional is guilty of medical negligence:
4
(1996) 2 SCC 634
5
II (2010) SLT 73
-Memorial
on behalf of Respondent- Page 14
I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do
something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell
below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in
his field.
IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that
the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated
so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and
apprehension.
In the case of Dr. M. Kochar vs Ispita Seal 6the National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission (NCDRC) was confronted with the issue of failure in IVF procedure. The
complainant in the case complained of failure in IVF procedure and demanded
compensation from the Doctor on account of medical negligence. The National
Commission in the case held that “No cure/ no success is not a negligence”, thus fastening
the liability upon the treating doctor is unjustified.
In the instant case too there is no as such solution to prevent ROP. What can be done at
the maximum is to take precautions in case of complications. Moreover, if oxygen is
supplied more than required it may lead to abnormal growth of blood vessels,
unpredictable where will they grow as in a premature baby initially the growth of blood
vessels is slow and grows rapidly after 5 weeks of birth. Treatment happens in a row but
they were late when called for post-natal O.P. they were to be referred to Ophthalmologist
Pediatrician but they didn’t come on the prescribed date and when they came on Saturday
i.e., 30th October, 2018 no such complication was foreseen. Also it was written in the
discharge summary that appropriate precautions regarding ROP were taken.
A medical professional can be only held liable, when the standard of care is reasonably is less
than the reasonable care that should be taken from a competent practitioner in that field. No
negligence will apply on medical professional, when he performs his duty with the utmost care
that should be taken, and he had taken all the precaution.
Medical professional should not be harassed unreasonably and unwanted apprehension
and fear should not be created on the medical fraternity that they can give their best in
certain cases where it is required, they should be given some liberty in certain peculiar
6
FIRST APPEAL NO. 368 OF 2011, decided on December 12, 2017
Wherefore, in the light of the factual matrix, issues presented for adjudication,
contentions raised and authorities relied upon, it is most humbly prayed, that this
Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to;
And/or pass any other order that this Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience, for which the Defense, shall in duty bound, forever pray.
SD/-
(Counsel for the RESPONDENT)