L125

MOOT COURT CASE

School of Law, Raffles University, Neemrana

L-125
RESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF

BEFORE

THE HONBLE DISTRICT COURT

Neeta

____________________ Appellant
v.

Dr. Ramswroop

____________________ Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

PRESENTED BY THE COUNSEL................. L-125

L-125
RESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS...III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....V
STATEMENT OF FACTS...VI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.....VII
DETAILED PLEADINGS1
PRAYER.......IX

-INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONSRESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

v.

Versus

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIESRESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
1. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3180
2. Hucks v. Cole, 1968 118 New L.J. 469
3. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Ors.
4. Philips India Ltd. v. Kunju Punnu

BOOKS
1. W.V.H. Rogers, WINFIELD & JOLOWICZ TORT, EIGHTEENTH EDITION, SWEET
& MAXWELL SOUTH ASIAN EDITION.
2. A Lakshminath & M Sridhar, Ramaswamy Iyers The Law of Torts,10th edition,
LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa
3. Justice G P Singh, The Law of Torts, 26th edition, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa
4. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, 23rd edition, Allahabad Law Agency Law Publisher

WEB REFERENCES
www.manupatra.com
www.indiankanoon.com

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONRESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF

S TATE M E N T O F J U R I S D I C T I O N

The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum before this Honble District Court.
The case has been filed under the medical negligence. It sets forth the facts and laws on
which the claims are based.

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONRESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF

-STATEMENT OF FACTSRESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF

S TATE M E N T O F FAC T S

It is the allegation of the appellant, husband of deceased Neeta that the respondent doctor
Ramswaroop was negligent in performing his duties with adequate competitiveness. Initially
Neeta, the deceased, developed abdominal pain and was diagnosed with strepto-penicillin
injection but pain didnt subside and her body temperature rose to 100 degree F. Hereafter Dr.
Ramswaroop, medical officer in Jaipur government hospital, confirmed the acute appendicitis
and advised surgical operation. Accordingly, patient was prepared for Appendectomy but
during operation appendix was found normal but gall bladder fundus was found inflamed,
enlarged and full of stones subsequently the gall bladder was removed. The operation was
successful. The anaesthesia used was chloroform and patient regained consciousness.
Later on the condition of patient started to deteriorate and several tests were carried out
thereof which reflected that patients kidney and liver were damaged and she also suffered
from jaundice. Her health was highly affected and eventually resulted into her death. On
enquiry, it was found that death was caused by overwhelming toxins in blood consequent of
hepatorenal failure which developed after the operation and prolonged chloroform
anaesthesia resulting in peripheral circulatory collapse signified by drastic fall in blood
pressure of patient.

-STATEMENT OF FACTSRESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF

-STATEMENT OF ISSUESRESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF

S TATE M E N T O F I S S U E S

1. Whether in the light of facts and circumstances, respondent is liable for negligence or
not?

10

-STATEMENT OF ISSUESRESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF

11

-SUMMARY OF PLEADINGSRESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. Whether in the light of facts and circumstances, respondent is liable for negligence or
not?
The decision of Honble District Court to be held the respondent not liable for any
negligence.

12

-DETAILED PLEADINGS-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-

DETAILED PLEADINGS

1. Whether in the light of facts and circumstances, respondent is liable for negligence or
not ?
Respondent humbly submits that there was no act of negligence on the part of Respondent Dr.
Ramswaroop, Medical Officer in Jaipur Government Hospital.
As observed from the nature of the case, it has to be dealt with the aspects of medical
negligence.
First of all, it is to be made clear before the Honble court that in the law of negligence,
professionals such as doctor (physician or surgeon) cannot assure the patient of successful
recovery in every case, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. The only
assurance with 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 and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted on him he would be
exercising his skill with reasonable competence. 1
So in accordance with it, a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of two
findings:
(a) Either he wasnt possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed
or
(b) He didnt exercise his skills with reasonable competence2
So here, the respondent undoubtedly possessed the requisite skill as he is a medical officer in
Jaipur Government hospital and furthermore by giving reasonable alternate course of
treatment to its patient and operating its patient to get rid of pain indicates that he exercised
his skills with reasonable competence. Hence, respondent cant be held liable for negligence.
Furthermore, when a medical practitioner attends to his patient, he owes following duties of
care:
(a) A duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case
(b) A duty of care in deciding what treatment to give
1 Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3180
2 R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, 23rd ed., p.259
X

-DETAILED PLEADINGS-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-

(c) A duty of care in the administration of the treatment3

The respondent as a medical officer took the reasonable care in analyzing the nature of the
case whether it lies in the circumference of his professional skills and then decided to treat
the patient. So the first duty of care has been performed by doctor to its best.
Moreover, the doctor initially administered the deceased with strepto-penicillin injections
rather than quickly jumping on the decision to operate the patient. So, reasonable care was
taken in to decide the type of treatment to be given to patient. Hence, second duty has been
performed as the best competent medical professional.
Then after, while administrating the treatment during operation the decision to remove the
diseased gall bladder although the operation was of Appendectomy was an act of adequate
care in administrating the treatment. Eventually, the deceased after regaining the
consciousness got rid of pain.
So, here the respondent as a medical practitioner performed all the duties with due care and
he is not entitled to be sued for any medical negligence.
Moreover, a medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong
from mischance or misadventures or through an error of judgement in choosing one
reasonable course of treatment in preference of another. 4 A medical practitioner would be
held liable only where his conduct fall below the standards of reasonable competent
practitioner in the field. The counsel humbly submits that the respondent, medical
practitioner, in the lights of circumstances tried his best to redeem the suffering of patient and
acted as reasonable competent practitioner when he removed the inflamed and stone full gall
bladder although the operation was performed for removal of appendix which was found
normal. Ultimately, patient benefitted from it. So the respondent cant be held liable for
medical negligence in taking an alternate course of treatment.
Furthermore, according to the law of negligence laid down in Indian Medical Association v.
V.P. Shantha and Ors.,5 the profession such as surgeon operates in spheres where success
cannot be achieved in every case and very often success or failure depends upon the factors
beyond the professional mans control.
3 R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, 23rd ed., p.268
4 Hucks v. Cole, 1968 118 New L.J. 469
5 1995 6 S.C.C. 651
X

-DETAILED PLEADINGS-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-

So counsel humbly pleads that as per the enquiry report, it was found that the death of patient
caused due to prolonged chloroform anaesthesia resulted in peripheral circulatory collapse.
To regain the consciousness of patient out of chloroform anaesthesia is the task beyond the
control of medical practitioner and prolonged chloroform anaesthesia may result in
circulatory collapse.6 However, patient regained the consciousness but the prolonged
chloroform anaesthesia resulted in the increase in amount of toxins in the blood which
subsequently caused hepatorenal failure and jaundice. The underlying facts may be observed
in case of Philips India Ltd. v. Kunju Punnu7. So, it was an accident slip and does not prove
the act of negligence on the part of respondent. Hence, appellant is not entitled to bring an
action against Dr. Ramswaroop.

6
7 A.I.R. 1975 Bom. 306 & 77 Bom. L.R. 337
X

-PRAYERRESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent
humbly submits that the Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

TO HOLD

1. Respondent is not liable for negligence

TO SET ASIDE

1. Appeal to be dismissed.
MISCELLANEOUS

1. Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd/(Counsel for the Respondent)