Problem 5

TEAM CODE:
SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION
IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT
AHMEDABAD
VIJENDRA
(APPELLANT)
v.
ABHILASHA & DR. DANG
(RESPONDANT)
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

1
-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................... 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................... 4-5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................ 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................7-9
QUESTIONS PRESENTED..................................................................... 10
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS...............................................................11-13
BODY OF PLEADINGS........................................................................14-26
PRAYER ……………………….……..........................................................27
2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. &: And
2. ART.: Article
3. Co.: Corporation
4. Dr.: Doctor
5. Ed.: Edition
6. e.g.: example
7. HC: High Court
8. Hon’ble: Honourable
9. i.e.: that is
10. v.: versus
11. Yr.: Year
3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
[JUDICIAL DECISIONS]
1. Blyth v. Brimingham Waterworks Co.

2. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab
3. Donoghue v. Stevenson
4. Poonam Verma v Ashwin Patel
[BOOKS REFERRED AND CITED]
1. The Law Of Torts By Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

2. The Indian Penal Code (3rd Ed.) By K.D. Gaur
3. TORT by WINFIELD and JOLOWICZ.
[ACTS AND STATUTES]
1. Constitution of India
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Limitation Act, 1963
4

[WEBSITES REFERRED]
1. http://www.manupatra.com last visited on August 29, 2011

2. http://www.indlaw.com last visited on August 28, 2011
3. http://bcasindia.nic.in last visited on August 28,2011
5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE COUNSELS REPRESENTING THE APPEALLANTS HAVE ENDORSED THEIR
PLEADINGS BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT AT AHMEDABAD,
UNDER ART.225 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THE PLAINTIFFS FURTHER
SUBMIT THAT THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT AS THE SUIT PROPERTY IS SITUATED
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT.
6

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:-
 Asha a 14 yr. girl lives in Ahmedabad with her mother Abhilasha. Her
father has divorced her mother and Asha has started exhibiting violent
behaviour and delusionary nature of which her neighbours have been
victims of her conduct.
 Asha has been diagnosed of suffering from “schizophrenia”, when

Abhilasha consulted Dr. Adbhut, a leading psychiatrist of Ahmedabad.
 Treatment is underway and Asha is responding positively to the

treatment. However, unknown to Abhilasha, Asha has stopped taking
the medicine since two weeks.
 Vijendra a software engineer by qualification and a gifted cricket player

is representing Gujarat at domestic cricket and aspires to play for
national cricket team.
7

 While going for morning practice session on road in front of Asha’s
house on 7/9/2008, Asha screamed indicating to Vijendra “I know you
are out to get me and I am going to get you first”.
 VIjendra, who had no knowledge of Asha’s mental illness, phoned

Abhilasha about the incident. Abhilasha assured that it will not happen
again. Vijendra believed Abhilasha’s assurances and, for that reason,
did not seek to avoid Asha.
 Asha got the scolding from Abhilasha and when Abhilasha asked Asha
if she was taking her medication, she assured her that she was taking
medicine and Abhilasha did not pursue the matter further.
 On 9/9/2008 Asha saw Vijendra taking ice-cream in a parlour adjacent

to her house and rode her bicycle rapidly as fast as she could heading
directly to Vijendra. Although Asha swerved away from Vijendra at the
last moment but Vijendra had to react by diving to one side. He stuck
his back against his bike parked nearby and suffered severe back injury.
8

 Dr. Dang, a renowned neurosurgeon of Ahmedabad advised him that it
would be impossible for him to take part in professional cricket for
leading his normal life without back trouble for many yrs.
 Dr. Dang offered a very good prospect of strengthening his back

sufficiently to enable him to play cricket. He was critical of this research
and knew that recent research had suggested that the new procedure
carried a small risk of damaging the spine and then also did not tell
Vijendra about it.
 Vijendra decided to undergo the surgery. Although the operation was

carefully performed, he suffered serious damage to his spine and
consequently was unable to work even as a software engineer and
suffered considerable pain.
 In January 2010, Vijendra’s mother suddenly collapsed while climbing

the stairs in her house. As there was no help available, Vijendra lifted
his mother and experienced terrible back pain and due to this rendered.
permanent disability
9

ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the mother is liable for negligence or not.
1.1 Mother was negligent in not taking care of her schizophrenic daughter
Asha, as without her mother’s knowledge Asha had stopped taking
medication.
1.2 Mother was negligent as their neighbours have been the victims of
Asha’s conduct & then also assured Vijendra that Asha would not
repeat this type of act without taking proper care that Asha does not do
any such act in future.
2. Whether Dr. Dang was Negligent in conducting the treatment of Vijendra.
2.1 Whether Dr. Dang was professionally negligent in his conduct.
2.2 Whether Dr. Dang was responsible damage suffered by Vijendra & ruining
his professional career.
3. Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of Vijendra with
respect to the damage he suffered .
10

SUMMARY OF PLEADING
Whether Abhilasha was negligent in performing of her fiduciary duty

towards Asha-
In an action for negligence, the plaintiff has to prove the following essentials :
1. That the defendant owed duty of care to the plaintif
2. The defendant made a breach of that duty
3. The plaintiff suffered damage as a consequence thereof.
In this particular case being the mother of a girl suffering from Schizophrenia
and when Vijendra complained about Asha’s act, Abhilasha owed a duty of care
to the plaintiff VIjendra.
And by not properly taking special care of her daughter lead to the breach of
duty which she was expected to do as a reasonable prudent person.
Due to this breach of duty, plaintiff Vijendra suffered damages in terms of
health and money.
So all the three essentials of Negligence have been fulfilled and Abhilasha is
liable for Tort of Negligence.
11

2. WHETHER DR. DANG WAS LIABLE FOR PROFESSIONAL
NEGLIGENCE
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 poses the requisite
skill for performing for this task. Any reasonable man entering into a profession
requires a particular level of learning to be called a professional of that branch.
Hence for professional negligence the pre requisites are:
1. Doctors duty of care, in deciding:-

(i) whether to under take the case
(ii) deciding what treatmemnt to give
(iii) administration of treatment
2. Breach of this duty of care by a professional amounts to professional

negligence
Thus Dr. Dang’s omission of informing the appellant about the known risk
makes him lianble for damages
12

3. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON
THE PART OF THE APPELLANT.
With respect to the first respondent ,the assurance by the mother regarding
her daughter was given to the appellant hence he had no contribution in
causing himelf the damage also when he jumped and hit the byke , the
reasonable apprehension created by Asha forced him to act proportionately as
a reflex.
Also the appellant trusted the doctor as he was a renowned surgeon and gave
consent to undego the operation unaware of the involved risk to his spine
which the doctor was aware of.
13

14

BODY OF PLEADINGS
Negligence1 is the breach of duty caused by the omission to do
something which a reasonable man, guided by those principles which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing
something which a reasonable prudent and reasonable person would not
do.
According to Charlesworth & Percy2, Negligence, in current forensic
speech, negligence has three meanings. There are : (i) a state of mind, in
which it is opposed to intention; (ii) careless conduct; and (iii) the
breach of duty to take care that is imposed by either common or statute
law. All three meanings are applicable in different circumstances but
anyone of them does not necessarily exclude the other meanings.
In this particular case, Abhilasha omitted her act which she was
reasonably supposed to do in normal circumstances. Instead of taking
special care of her daughter after the complaint of Vijendra & checking
whether her daughter is taking medicine on time or not she did not act in
a proper way due to which Asha’s mental illness grew.
Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness. People who suffer from it are
unable to relate their thoughts and feelings to what is happening around
them and often withdraw from society. Asha was suffering from the
same disease only, she was unable to relate her thoughts with the reality
and the reason for this disease was divorce of her parents after a long
marital discord.
1. Blyth v. Brimingham Waterworks Co. 1856 LR 11 Exch 781
2. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 2005 S.C. 3180
15

In a French case3, Parents have accordingly been held strictly liable for a
traffic accident caused by their teenage son riding his moped as
vicarious liability in French law extends beyond employees and includes
children (CC, art 1384). However, in English law, the victim may sue
the parents only if they owed him a direct duty of care in respect of the
child.
As the elements laid down in Poonam Verma v Ashwin Patel 4 case that
to prove negligence three elements should be proved
(1)Defendant was under a duty to take reasonable care towards the
plaintiff to avoid the damage complained of,
It means a legal duty rather than a mere moral, religious or social duty.
The plaintiff has to establish that the defendant owed to him a special
legal duty to take care, of which he has made a breach.
In Donoghue v. Stevenson5, A purchased a bottle of ginger beer from a
retailer for the appellant, a lady friend. Some of the contents were
poured in a tumbler and she consumed the same. When the remaining
contents of the bottle were poured into her tumbler, the decomposed
body of a snail floated out with her ginger-beer. The appellant alleged
that she seriously suffered in her health in consequence of having drunk
a part of the contamined contents. The bottle was of dark opaque glass
and closed with metal cap, so that the contents could not be ascertained
by inspection. She bought an action against the manufacturer for
damage.
The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed her a duty to take
care that the bottle did not contain any noxious matter, and that
manufacturer would be liable on breach of duty.
3. Geoffrey Samuel’s Cases and materials on torts (2006 edition)
4. 1995(1) CPR 276
5. (1932) A.C. 562 : 147 L.T. 281 : 48 T.L.R. 494.

16

Lords Atkin said, “It is remarkable, how difficult it is to find in the
English authorities statements of general application defining the
relations authorities statements of general application defining the
relations between parties that give rise to the duty. The courts are
concerned with the actual relations which come before them in actual
litigation, and it is sufficient to say whether the duty exists in those
circumstances. The result is that the courts have been engaged upon an
elaborate classification of duties as they exist in respect of property,
whether real or personal, with further divisions as to ownership,
occupation or control and distinctions based on the particular relations of
the one side or the other , whether manufacturer, salesman or landlord,
customer, tenant, stranger, and so on. In this way, it can be ascertained at
any time whether the law recognizes a duty, but only where the cases
can be referred to some particular species which has been examined and
classified
(2)There was a breach of duty on the part of the defendant,

In this case there was a breach of duty of manufacturers as they owed
the plaintiff to take care that the bottle did not contain any noxious
matter.
(3)The breach of duty was legal cause of the damage complained of.
This breach of duty caused damage to plaintiff, as she seriously suffered
in her health in consequence of having drunk a part of the contamined
contents.
17

Proving the above elements in the given case:
(1) Abhilasha was under a duty to take higher degree of care towards
Asha as her daughter was suffering from a serious mental illness.
Vijendra even complained to Abhilasha but she did not give much
importance to it.
(2)There was surely a breach of duty on the part of Abhilasha because

even after complain of Vijendra she did not take care of Asha which a
prudent person would have done. Because of her negligence Asha got on
the bicycle to hit Vijendra and ended in Vijendra getting hurt badly in
the spine.
(3)Damage occurred to Vijendra as his spine was badly hurt and he had
to leave his cricketing career. Even he had the monetary loss as he had to
consult doctors and undergo through various tests.
18

2. WHETHER DR. DANG WAS NEGLIGENT IN CONDUCTING THE TREATMENT
OF VIJENDRA
It is humbly submitted that the respondent 2 Dr. Dang was negligent in

conducting the treatment of the appellant which attributed damage to him
also ruining his professional career. As the facts clearly said ‘’ operation was
carefully performed’’ but the argument we would like to put forward is that
by not informing the appellant about the serious risk involved in the operation
Dr. Dang committed a breach of duty to take care amounting to professional
negligence on his part as a renowned doctor. The appellant suffered a severe
back injury and for treatment he went to the respondent 2 . The respondent 2
was expected to inform the appellant . To be precise we are initially defining
the points on which we find respondent2 liable.
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
In Ramaswamy Iyer’s book ‘THE LAW OF TORTS’’, he throws some light on the
topic of professional negligence . Accordingly .A person who holds himself out
ready to give medical advice and treatment when consulted by a patient owes
him certain duties namely a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the
case ,a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the
administration of that treatment .A breach of any of these duties gives a right of
action for negligence to patient .The doctor no doubt has a discretion in
choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion
is relatively ample in the in cases of emergency.
A practitioner can only be held liable in this respect if his diagnosis is so palpably
wrong as to prove negligence,that is to say .if his mistake is of such nature as to
imply an absence of reasonable skill in the profession. where a patient suffered
19

damage after there had been a departure from the orthodox course of treatment
, the court had to inquire whether the doctor had taken all proper factors into
account prior to taking action and order to determine whether that departure
was justified . If it was not justified there was a breach if duty to the patients.1
THE standard of care required of a doctor in the course of his diagnosis and
treatment , namely the exercise of the ordinary skill which a doctor in the
defendant’s position would be expected to posess.[ hills v potter & ors [1983] 3 All ER 716
; SIDWAY v bethlem royal hospital [1984] 1 All ER 1018 ; THAKE & ANOR v Maurice [1984] 2 All ER 513 (
vasectomy- failure to give warning of possible regaining of fertility –a breach of surgeon’s duty of care .
In an australian case relating to breach of duty in ‘’failure to warn’’, the plaintiff

Mrs. Hart was suffering from persistent sore throat .Dr. Chappel, whom she
consulted diagnosed a pharyngeal pouch in her oesophagus and recommended
surgery .Dr. chapel , however, failed to inform her of the small, but known risk of
infection and damage to vocal cords resulting in voice loss though she has
expressed her concern about it . inspite of there being no negligence in
performing the surgery , the risk materialised and Mrs. Hart suffered serious
voice loss .The finding was that had she been warned of the risk , she would
have sought further advice and she would have wanted the operation
performed by the most experienced person available .On these the HC of
Australia by majority upheld the decree for award of damages . the Australian
case was referref with approved by the House of Lords in Chester v. afsher.
In Chester v. afsher , the claimant patient underwent surgery for removal three
intraverbal discs as a cure for severe back pain . although the claimant has
questioned the surgeon she was not told about the known risk of nerve
20

damaging in paralysis which she suffered after the operation . Had she been told
about this risk she would not have atleast then undergone the operation .On
these facts the claimant was held entitled to damages .There was a breach of
duty on the part of the surgeon in not informing the patient of the risk but the
patient would remained remedyless,had the conventional but for test were
applied ,therefore, in the special circumstances of the case and to prevent
injustice that test was not applied .
21

2.1 WHETHER Dr .DANG WAS PROFESSIONALLY NEGLIGENT IN HIS CONDUCT.
It is humbly submitted that Dr. dang was professionally negligent on his not
informing the appellant about the hazardous risk involved in the operation. The
appellant trusted the respondent2 as in a doctor-patient relationship and also
based on the information given by the doctor the appellant agreed to undergo
the operation.
According to the medical ethics ,although a physician has full liberty to adopt any
of the accepted theories of medicine and surgery in which he
honestly believes in but ordinary and reasonable care and skill should be applied
at all times with all the patients. The question is not the competency of Dr. dang
as a surgeon but it is the criterion of a reasonable man since negligence is also
the 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[ page 242
‘’breach of duty’’ –tort by Winfield and jolowicz].Also ,reasonable varies with
circumstances questioning ;;if the defendant came up to the standard of a
reasonable man’. Dr. Dang was ‘’critical’’ of the research about the new surgical
procedure carrying the risk of damaging the spine. The appellant was already
suffering from severe back injuries and the failed operation
aggravated the injury further thus causing serious damage to this spine. The
appellant was not informed about this risk involved although respondent 2 the
doctor was fully aware about the risk. He brought in his prejudice being ‘critical’
of the recent research thus disregarding it. It was a duty on his part to inform the
patient vijendra about any serious risks involved in the operation so that he could
give a free and fair voluntary consent to undergo the operation and sought
further advice from some more experienced person available so as to recover
22

the injury. But due to the faulty judgement of Dr. Dang and not informing about
the known risk to the appellant , he suffered serious loss.
On the above mentioned points the respondents seek to prove that respondent 2
Dr. Dang was professionally negligent in his conduct towards vijendra thus
aggravating his injury further .
23

2.2 WHETHER DR. DANG WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE SUFFERED BY
VIJENDRA AND RUINING HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER.
It is humbly submitted that Dr. Dang’s act was jointly responsible for the damage
suffered by vijendra and ruining his professional career. As there was a new
surgical procedure that offered a very good prospect of strengthening his back
sufficiently to enable him to play cricket again. Dr. Dang knew that the recent
research suggested that this surgical procedure had the risk of damaging the
spine but as he was ‘critical’ of this research so he did not tell vijendra about it.
As a patient undergoing a major surgery ,vijendra had the right to be informed
about all the risks involved as it was a important decision for him in the sense that
he will again be able to pursue his interest which was cricket ,he being a gifted
player.
Trusting on his doctor the appellant agreed to undergo the operation without
proper knowledge of the risks involved in the vague idea that he had been pre-
informed about any risk .
The operation was performed carefully but it led to serious damage to the spine
of the appellant .Consequently, he was unable to work even as a software
engineer and suffered considerable pain. If not the appellant had undergone the
operation he would have been working as a software engineer but due to the
breach of duty to take care on the part of the doctor the appellant suffered
damage and lost his job of a software engineer finally the cause rendering him
permanently disabled.
In the light of the above points , the counsel would like to state that Dr. Dang is
responsible to the appellant for damage suffered by him and ruining his
professional career.
24

3.WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF
VIJENDRA WITH RESPECT TO THE DAMAGE HE SUFFERED.
It is humbly submitted that there was no contributory negligence on the part of

the appellant. As firstly , the respondent 1 Abhilasha assured the appellant saying
that her daughter has earlier made threats to the people but she would do no
physical harm to the appellant which made him believe that the 14 year old Asha
will not interfere with his space and therefore he did not seek to avoid her .
Also when Asha saw vijendra standing near the ice cream parlour she rode as
fast as she could, as clearly mentioned in the facts creating reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the appellant that she may hit him with her bicycle .
The appellant’s reaction of jumping to one side was a reflex action any
reasonable human would take to prevent any harm to him and also Asha’s
previous action has created some doubt in the appellant’s ,mind .
Secondly, coming to the respondent 2 Dr. Dang , although the appellant gave
consent to undergo the operation but he was not aware of the risk to his spine
which was known beforehand to the doctor . He trusted the Doctor as he was a
renowned surgeon of Ahmedabad and thus went by his advice to take the
operation according to the new procedure .
Also after the failure of operation when the appellant’s mother collapsed while
climbing the stairs he did not intentionally do the act of picking her up to damage
his spine thus rendering himself permanently disabled.
It was a inevitable accident which could not have been foreseen and it was
necessity on the part of the appellant since he had no one near to help him pick
25

his mother up i.e it was a rescue case being an exception to the maxim VOLENTI
NON FIT INJURIA. As in the case of Wagner v. International Railway . Applying
the ‘but –for’ test in this case prima facie the respondents may not appear to be
liable but if we go for causation of fact then we can deduce from the chain of
consequences that the tortuous act of the respondents was responsible for the
damage suffered by the appellant thus ruining his professional career.
Thus keeping in view the above points, the counsel would like to submit that
there was no contributory negligence on the part of the appellant .
26

Prayer
In the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced, authorities cited the
appellant humbly request the honorable High Court of Gujrat to make
Abhilasha and Dr. Dang liable for the damages suffered by Vijendra
and make him compensate.
May pass order, decree, or judgment in the light of equity, justice and in
good conscience and for this act of kindness of your lordships, the
appellant shall be ever grateful.
27

Problem 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Problem 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE:

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT

ABHILASHA & DR. DANG

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................... 4-5

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

7. HC: High Court

10. v.: versus

11. Yr.: Year

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

1. Blyth v. Brimingham Waterworks Co.

[BOOKS REFERRED AND CITED]

1. The Law Of Torts By Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

[ACTS AND STATUTES]

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Limitation Act, 1963

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

1. http://www.manupatra.com last visited on August 29, 2011

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

THE COUNSELS REPRESENTING THE APPEALLANTS HAVE ENDORSED THEIR

PLEADINGS BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT AT AHMEDABAD,

UNDER ART.225 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THE PLAINTIFFS FURTHER

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT AS THE SUIT PROPERTY IS SITUATED

WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT.

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

 Asha has been diagnosed of suffering from “schizophrenia”, when

 Treatment is underway and Asha is responding positively to the

 Vijendra a software engineer by qualification and a gifted cricket player

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

 VIjendra, who had no knowledge of Asha’s mental illness, phoned

 On 9/9/2008 Asha saw Vijendra taking ice-cream in a parlour adjacent

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

 Dr. Dang offered a very good prospect of strengthening his back

 Vijendra decided to undergo the surgery. Although the operation was

 In January 2010, Vijendra’s mother suddenly collapsed while climbing

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

1. Whether the mother is liable for negligence or not.

2. Whether Dr. Dang was Negligent in conducting the treatment of Vijendra.

2.1 Whether Dr. Dang was professionally negligent in his conduct.

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

Whether Abhilasha was negligent in performing of her fiduciary duty

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

Hence for professional negligence the pre requisites are:

1. Doctors duty of care, in deciding:-

2. Breach of this duty of care by a professional amounts to professional

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

1. Blyth v. Brimingham Waterworks Co. 1856 LR 11 Exch 781

2. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 2005 S.C. 3180

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

4. 1995(1) CPR 276

5. (1932) A.C. 562 : 147 L.T. 281 : 48 T.L.R. 494.

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

(2)There was a breach of duty on the part of the defendant,

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

(2)There was surely a breach of duty on the part of Abhilasha because

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

It is humbly submitted that the respondent 2 Dr. Dang was negligent in

SEPTEMBER 2011 INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION