TEAM CODE-35

LLOYD INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION (LIME – L3) 2017

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

KUNDUR GROUP OF HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED ……APPELLANT

V.

Mr MANINDER …….RESPONDENT

SPECIAL LEAVE APPEAL NO. ……/2017, …….2017

CLUBBED WITH

Mr MANINDER …….APPELLANT

V.

KUNDUR GROUP OF HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED ……RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
List of abbreviations………………………………………………………………………… 3

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................ 4

Statement of Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................... 6

Statement of Facts .................................................................................................................... 7

Statement of Issues…………………………………………………………………………….9

Summery of Arguments ............................................................................................................10

Arguments .................................................................................................................................12

Prayer………………………………………………………………………………………......22

2
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

ABBREVIATION DEFINITION
Art Article
AIR All India Reporter
H.C. High Court
i.e. Id est (That is)
ILR Indian Law Reporter
IJCL Indian Journal of Constitutional Law
MLJ Madras Law Review
NPR National Population Register
PIL Public Interest Litigation
S.C. Supreme Court
UK United Kingdom
V. Versus
CIC Central Information Commission

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITATIONS

1. Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs Institute of Human Behaviour and Applied Science Govt of
National Capital Territory of Delhi

2. Rajappan Vs. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science and Technology
[ILR2004(2)Kerala150]

3. Kanaiyalal Ramanlal Trivedi v Dr. Satyanarayan Vishwakarma 1996; 3 CPR 24 (Guj); I

(1997) CPJ 332 (Guj); 1998 CCJ 690 (Guj)

3
4. S.A.Quereshi v Padode memorial Hospital and Research Centre II 2000. CPJ
463 (Bhopal)

5. Dr. Shyam Kumar v Rameshbhai, Harmanbhai Kachiya 2002;1 CPR 320, I (2006) CPJ
16 (NC)

6. Force v. M Ganeswara Rao 1998;3 CPR 251; 1998 (1) CPJ 413 (AP
SCDRC)

7. V P Shanta v. Cosmopolitan Hospitals (P) Ltd 1997;1 CPR 377 (Kerala SCDRC)

8. Devendra Kantilal Nayak v Dr. Kalyaniben Dhruv Shah 1996;3 CPR 56; I (1997) CPJ
103; 1998 CCJ 544 (Guj)

9. Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre v. Samuraj and Anr., I(2005)
CPJ (NC)

10. Dr. Tokugha Yeptomi V Appollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd and Anr III 1998
CPJ 132 (SC)

11. Raghunath Raheja v Maharashtra Medical Council, AIR 1996 Bom 198

12. Laxman Balkrishan Joshi vs. TrimbakBapuGodbole

13. CIVIL APPEAL No.692 of 2012 Advanced Medicare & Research Institute Ltd. Vs. Dr.
Kunal Saha & Ors

STATUTES AND REPORTS

1. The Constitution of India

2. Right to Information Act, 2005

3. Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002

4. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6. UK's Data Protection Act 1998

4
BOOKS AND JOURNALS

1. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, 12th Edition 2016

2. M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edition 2016

3. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 27th Edition 2016

4. Dr. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, 23rd edition, 2016

5. P Ramnath Aiyar, The Major Law Lexicon, 4th Edition, 2010

6. Clinical Anesthesiology,G Edward Morgan Jr., Maged S Mikhail Chapter 26,

DYNAMIC/OPEN SOURCE WEB LINKS

1. https://www.colleran.com/legal-blog/what-happens-when-patient-is-given-too-much-

anesthesia/

2. http://accessanesthesiology.mhmedical.com/book.aspx?bookid=353

3. https://brain-surgery.com/what-are-the-side-effects-of-brain-surgery/

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. In the present matter, one Special Leave Petition and one Appeal have been clubbed

together.

2. Mr. Maninder. The Petitioner in the case has filed an Appeal while Kundoor Group of

Hospitals Pvt Ltd (KGHPL) have filed Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Indian

Constitution and and hence both have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5
3. The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions, and arguments in the present

case. The parties shall accept any judgements of the court as final and binding upon them, and

shall execute in its entirety and in good faith.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr Maninder, was a student , aged 23 years, resident of Mewala district of Kundoor

State.

2. Mr. Maninder was suffering from severe headache from the last few weeks for which he

initially went for conventional free medication, from which he did not get relief.

6
3. Being distressed, Mr. Maninder subsequently approached Kundoor Group of Hospitals

Pvt Ltd, (KGGHPL hereinafter referred as Respondent, where Dr. Krishna suggested several

medical.

4. Based on the report of the tests conducted on Mr. Maninder, he was advised to undergo

neurosurgery. Mr Maninder was further informed about the nature of problem and course of

medical treatment.

5. Mr. Maninder was informed about the expected expenditure of Rs 1,70,000/-(one lakh

and seventy thousand only) to which he and his relatives later on consented. The fees was sought

in advance by KGHPL prior to the surgery.

6. The Operation was conducted on 11.04.14 . Mr. Maninder regained consciousness on

11.04.14 after the operation. He expressed heavy discomfort and found that the lower part of the

body was paralyzed.

7. Authorities of KGHPL were informed on the same day about Mr Maninder’s condition,

who assured that the condition would improve in few days.

8. Not finding that the condition of Mr Maninder is improving even after few days, the

relatives were force to shift Mr Maninder to Government Hospital who sought all medical and

treatment records of the petitioner.

9. The Respondent-KGHPL refused to part with medical documents in the critical time.

subsequently the Government Hospital conducted various tests and diagnosed that the paralysis

of the lower part of the Maninder’s body was due to the administration of excessive anesthesia

during the surgery conducted in KGHPL.

10. Mr. Maninder was discharged after few weeks from Government Hospital and was

informed that he would not be normal after in the near future.

7
11. Mr Maninder filed the Petition in National Commission for seeking compensation of Rs

1.5 crore alleging medical negligence by KGHPL which had caused him undue hardship, mental

agony, and irreparable loss restricting him to wheel chair. The National Commission gave him

relief according to multiplier method.

12. Additionally, application under RTI Act was filed by the Petitioner seeking copies of

medical records and the case sheet, which were refused by KGHPL.

20. Owing to refusal of State Information Commission to grant request of Mr. Maninder’s

RTI application, Petitioner filed a writ petition in Kundoor HC, where KGHPL was ordered to

furnish information to Mr Maninder.

22. The Respondent-KGHPL had filed Special Leave petition in Supreme Court against the

order of High Court, While Mr. Maninder also filed an appeal against the order of National

Commission seeking more compensation.

23. Matters being related, the Hon’able Supreme Court has decided to club the two appeals.

ISSUES PRESENT BEFORE THE HON’ABLE SUPREME COURT

1. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to seek his personal medical documents and

diagnostic reports from the Respondent- KGHPL

2. Whether there was Medical Negligence on behalf of the Respondent.

8
3. Whether the meagre compensation awarded by the National Consumer Commission is

highly disproportionate to the injuries and mental agony suffered by the Petitioner and if Yes,

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the relief of Rs 1.5 Cr compensation on the ground of severe

disability suffered by the Claimant owing to the medical negligence of KGHPL.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. The Petitioner is a Citizen of India and thus has an in-defeasible right to obtain

information pertaining to his own treatment in terms of right to have his medical records, which

is rooted in articles 19 and 21 of the constitution of India, and Respondent-hospital authorities,

9
have a duty to provide the same under the Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct,

Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002.

2. The present Special Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner against the judgement of

Hon`ble High Court of Delhi is devoid of merits and is thus liable to be dismissed forthwith. The

Hon`ble High Court of Kundoor has interpreted the provisions and intention article 19 and 21 of

the constitution and has allowed the writ of the Respondent under article 226 thereby directing

the Petitioner to supply the information of personal medical reports.

3. The Petitioner wanted to avail the services of the Hospital and thus had paid the fee and

other charge to the Hospital concerned on account of his personal treatment and was thus well

covered under the provisions of of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

4. It is a matter of fact by the tests conducted in the Government Hospital that the paralysis

of the lower part of the Petitioner`s body was due to the administration of excessive anesthesia

during the operation conducted in the Hospital with the further diagnose that the Petitioner would

not be normal in the near future, therefore, the Respondent Doctor had committed an act of gross

negligence in the treatment of the Petitioner

5. The Patient in the present case has suffered severe disability owing to the medical

negligence by the Hospital/Doctor and it is settled by law that the Medical negligence by doctors

and hospitals must be held liable for the deficiency in services, as provided in the consumer laws

in India and the victim must be compensated proportionately to the sufferings faced by the

10
victim. That the whole family was dependent upon the victim who was a 23 year old boy and

likely to be the bread earner of the family and after the present medical negligence of the

Doctor/Hospital, the whole family has been put to irreparable losses, financial crisis and severe

mental agony and thus the victim is eligible and entitled to an adequate compensation valued at

Rs.1.5 Crore which is completely justified in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The meagre amount of compensation awarded by the national Commission is highly

disproportionate to the grave sufferings faced by the Petitioner. The method and basis of

computation of compensation applied by the national commission was highly incorrect and

without appreciating the relevant facts of the sufferings of the victim and the family

circumstances of the victim`s family. The petitioners family has been put to undue hardship,

mental agony, and irreparable losses. The quantum of the compensation, thus, need to be

calculated by keeping all the relevant facts in the mind which would quantify to Rs.1.5 Crore in

the given facts and circumstances of the case

DETAILED ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to seek his personal medical documents and
diagnostic reports from the respondent.

(a) The Petitioner is a Citizen of India and thus has an in-defeasible right to obtain
information pertaining to his own treatment in terms of the provision in articles 19 and 21
of constitution of India.

11
(b) Article 19(1) and 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights declares that every one shall have the right to hold opinions without interference,
and every one shall have the right to freedom of expression, and this right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart information of ideas of all kinds regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other
media of his choice. It needs to be noted that India is a signatory to the aforesaid
convention..... Right to hold opinions and to receive information and ideas without
interference embodied in the Covenant is concomitant to the right to freedom of speech
and expression which includes right to free flow of information. Since ancient times we
have allowed noble thoughts to come from all sides [Rig Veda]. This has helped in
forming, building, strengthening, nurturing, replenishing and recreating opinions and
beliefs of an individual...... Reading Article 19(1)(a) along with the Covenant, it must be
recognised that right to freedom of speech and expression includes freedom to seek,
receive and impart information of ideas. It seems to us that freedom to hold opinions,
ideas, beliefs and freedom of thought, etc., which is also enshrined in
Preamble to the Constitution, is part of freedom of speech and expression.

(c) The Medical Council of India has imposed an obligation on Hospitals as per the
regulations notified on 11th March 2002, amended up to December 2010 to maintain the
medical record and provide patient access to it. These regulations were made in exercise
of the powers conferred under section 20A read with section 33(m) of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), by the Medical Council of India, with
the previous approval of the Central Government, relating to the Professional Conduct,
Etiquette and Ethics for registered medical practitioners, namely: Maintenance of
Medical Records:

1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her
indoor patients for a period of three years from the date of commencement of the
treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and
attached as Appendix 3.

12
 1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the
patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly
acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.

(d) Hon'ble Kerala High Court recognizing the above principle in Rajappan Vs. Sree
Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science and Technology1 had observed that :

".....Appendix 3 referred to in regulations 1.3.1 provides for

information, among other things, pertaining to diagnosis, investigations advised
with reports, diagnosis after investigation, and advice. Therefore it is obvious from
the appendix that what is to be given is the full details about the patient, namely, the
findings pertaining to the deceased. That is the diagnosis and the periodical advice for
treatment. As and when diagnosis is made the treatment will be advised by the doctor to
the nursing staff in the case sheet itself. Therefore the case sheet will show the
progressive testing, diagnosis and treatment given to the patient. The details to be
furnished in Appendix 3 are of comprehensive in nature and should contain the diagnosis
and treatment given to the patient during the period, the patient was under
treatment. Regulation 1.3.1 has to be read with regulation 1.3.2 which makes it
mandatory that any patient requesting for medical records should be furnished copies of
"documents" within 72 hours from the date of demand. In other words, the patient's right
to receive documents pertaining to his/her treatment is recognized by the Regulations.
The documents referred to in Regulation 1.3.2 necessarily have to be the entire
case sheet maintained in the hospital which contains the result of diagnosis and
treatment administered, the summary of which is provided in Appendix 3. Therefore the
petitioner is entitled to photocopies of the entire case sheet and the respondents cannot
decline to give the same by stating that the details are available in Appendix 3 furnished,
which they are willing to furnish."

Kerala High Court further observed that:

1
in Rajappan Vs. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science and
Technology [ILR2004(2)Kerala150]

13
 It is also to be noticed that Regulations do not provide any immunity for any medical
record to be retained by any medical practitioner of the hospital from being given to the
patient. On the other hand it is expressly provided that a patient should be given medical
records in Appendix 3 with supporting documents. Therefore in the absence of any
immunity either under the Regulations or under any other law, the respondent Hospital
is bound to give photocopies of the entire documents of the patient.
Standing counsel for the Respondent Hospital submitted that the documents
once furnished will be used as evidence against the hospital and against the
doctors concerned. I do not think this apprehension will justify for claiming
immunity against furnishing the documents. If proper service was rendered in the course
of treatment, I see no reason why the hospital, or staff, or doctors should be apprehensive
of any litigation. A patient or victim's relative is entitled to know whether proper medical
care was rendered to the patient entrusted with the hospital, which will be revealed from
case sheet and medical records. There should be absolute transparency with regard to the
treatment of a patient and a patient or victim's relative is entitled to get copies of medical
records. This is recognized by the Medical Council Regulations and therefore petitioner
is entitled to have copies of the entire medical records of his daughter which should
be furnished in full.

(e) Case Law as to Right of information of Patients :

(i) There are several decisions by the High Courts and Consumer
Commissions establishing the right of patient to information and duty of the
Hospitals to provide the same. In Kanaiyalal Ramanlal Trivedi v Dr. Satyanarayan
Vishwakarma2, the hospital and doctor were held guilty of deficiency in service
as case records were not produced before the court to refute the allegation of a
lack of standard care.

(ii) If hospital takes up a plea of record destroyed, it was held that it could be
a case of negligence. In S.A.Quereshi v Padode memorial Hospital and
2
Kanaiyalal Ramanlal Trivedi v Dr. Satyanarayan Vishwakarma 1996; 3 CPR 24
(Guj); I (1997) CPJ 332 (Guj); 1998 CCJ 690 (Guj)

14
 Research Centre 3 it was held that the plea of destroying the case sheet as per the
general practice of the hospitals appeared to the court as an attempt to suppress
certain facts that are likely to be revealed from the case sheet. The
opposite party was found negligent as he should have retained the case records
until the disposal of the complaint. Explaining the consequences of denial of
medical record, it was held that an adverse inference could be drawn from that. In
case of Dr. Shyam Kumar v Rameshbhai, Harmanbhai Kachiya 4. The National
Commission said that not producing medical records to the patient
prevents the complainant from seeking an expert opinion and it is the duty of
the person in possession of the medical records to produce it in the court and
adverse inference could be drawn for not producing the records.

(iii) On the point of negligence AP state commission said in case

5
of Force v. M Ganeswara Rao (1998) that there was negligence as the
case sheet did not contain a proper history, history of prior treatment and
investigations, and even the consent papers were missing. In V P Shanta v.
Cosmopolitan Hospitals (P) Ltd6 the State Commission held that failure to deliver
Xray films is deficient service. The patient and his attendants were deprived
of their right to be informed of the nature of injury sustained.

(iv) In Devendra Kantilal Nayak v Dr. Kalyaniben Dhruv Shah 1996 7 the State
Commission disbelieved the evidence of the surgeon because only photocopies
were produced to substantiate the evidence without any plausible explanation
regarding the absence of the original. National Commission in case of Meenakshi
Mission Hospital and Research Centre v. Samuraj and Anr., I(2005) 8 held
3
S.A.Quereshi v Padode memorial Hospital and Research Centre
II 2000. CPJ 463 (Bhopal)
4
Dr. Shyam Kumar v Rameshbhai, Harmanbhai Kachiya 2002;1 CPR 320, I (2006)
CPJ 16 (NC)
5
Force v. M Ganeswara Rao 1998;3 CPR 251; 1998 (1) CPJ 413
(AP SCDRC)
6
V P Shanta v. Cosmopolitan Hospitals (P) Ltd 1997;1 CPR 377 (Kerala SCDRC)
7
) In Devendra Kantilal Nayak v Dr. Kalyaniben Dhruv Shah 1996;3 CPR 56; I
(1997) CPJ 103; 1998 CCJ 544 (Guj)
8
Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre v. Samuraj and Anr.,
I(2005) CPJ (NC)

15
 that the hospital was guilty of negligence on the ground that the
name of the anesthetist was not mentioned in the operation notes
though anesthesia was administered by two anesthetists. There were two progress
cards about the same patient on two separate papers that were produced in court.
In Dr. Tokugha Yeptomi V Appollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd and Anr
III 1998 9it was held that not maintaining confidentiality of patient information
could be an issue of medical negligence. In this case the HIV status of a patient
was made known to others without the consent of the patient.

These decisions establish the right of the patient and obligation of hospitals or medical
institutions to give medical records.

(v) In Raghunath Raheja v Maharashtra Medical Council 10, Bombay High

Court upheld the right of patient to medical record very emphatically. Judges M
Shah and A Savanth stated:-

"We are of the view that when a patient or his near relative demands from the
Hospital or the doctor the copies of the case papers, it is necessary for the Hospital
authorities and the doctors concerned to furnish copies of such case papers to the
patient or his near relative. In our view, it would be necessary for the
Medical Council to ensure that necessary directions are given to all the
Hospitals and the doctors calling upon then to furnish the copies of the case papers
and all the relevant documents pertaining to the patient concerned. The
hospitals and the doctors may be justified, in demanding necessary
charges for supplying the copies of such documents to the patient or the near
relative. We, therefore, direct the first respondent Maharashtra Medical Council to
issue necessary circulars in this behalf to all the hospitals and doctors
in the State of Maharashtra. We do not think that thet hospitals or the doctors
can claim any secrecy! or any confidentiality in the matter of copies of the case

9
Dr. Tokugha Yeptomi V Appollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd and
Anr III 1998 CPJ 132 (SC)
10
Raghunath Raheja v Maharashtra Medical Council, AIR 1996 Bom 198

16
 papers relating to the patient. These must be made available to him on
demand, subject to payment of usual charges. If necessary, the
Medical Council may issue a pressnote in this behalf giving it wide
publicity in all the media."

Transformation of ethical norm into right to medical records

(f). Medical ethics internationally is governed by the principle of autonomy, which

recognizes the rights of individuals to selfdetermination. Autonomy is rooted in society's
respect for individuals' ability to make informed decisions about personal matters. It is an
important social value which has shifted to define medical quality in terms of outcomes
that are important to the patient rather than medical professionals. The
respect for autonomy is the basis for informed consent and advance directives.

(g). The Patients are capable of electing to make their own medical decisions, or can
delegate decisionmaking authority to another party. Only if the patient is incapacitated,
laws around the world designate different processes for obtaining informed
consent, typically by having a person appointed by the patient or their next of kin make
decisions for them. Thus the value of informed consent is closely related to
the values of autonomy and truth telling.

(h). The reason for "ethical conflicts" in medical ethics is lack of

communication. Communication breakdowns between patients and their healthcare team,
between family members, or between members of the medical community, can all lead to
disagreements and strong feelings. These breakdowns should be remedied, and
many apparently insurmountable "ethics" problems can be solved with open lines of
communication. The Patient has to be communicated all the information about his or her
medical treatment, which is now being recognized as a right guaranteed by various
statutes rather than leaving it at the level of a mere ethical norm.

(i) The UK's Data Protection Act 1998 gives an individual a right of access to

17
 information held about him. The Access to Health Records Act 1990 gave access to a
patient's medical records in noncomputerized form, while Data Protection Act 1998 Act
gives access to both electronic and nonelectronic records. The 1990 Act is still relevant to
be in force relating to access to a patient's medical records after his death.

(j) In Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia vs Government Of NCT Of Delhi 11 on 23 July, 2014
para 29 of the decision following was held:-

…………….. The Commission is of the view that the patient's right to obtain his medical
record is not only protected under RTI Act, but also under the regulation
of Indian Medical Council, which is based on world medical ethics, and
also as a 'consumer' under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as explained above. It is
the duty of the doctor/Hospital to develop a mechanism whereby the copy of patients
medical record from his joining to his discharge be provided to him or his legal
representative even without him asking as a matter of routine procedure at the time of
discharge as directed by Bombay High Court in above referred
case…………………………..

2. Whether the claim of Medical Negligence is factually correct

(a) The Respondent had demonstrated gross negligence in carrying out treatment of
the Petitioner as the Petitioner was administered with the excess amount of Anaesthesia
during the course of operation which led to the paralysis of the lower part of the
petitioner`s body and thus it is established and proven fact that the Respondent-Hospital
authorities have acted negligently and irresponsibly and have made themselves liable to
pay adequate compensation of Rs. 1.5 crore to the Petitioner herein.

(b) It is pertinent to mention that When a medical practitioner attends to his patient ,
he owes him the duty of care. A duty of care in deciding what treatment to give and a duty
of care in the administration of the treatment. The Punjab and Haryana high court

11
Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences,
GNCT 23 Jul 2014, CIC

18
 observed in the case of Doctor Laxman Balkrishan Joshi vs. Trimbak Bapu Godbole that
the petitioner must bring to his task a reasonable skill and knowledge and must exercise a
reasonable degree of care. Neither very highest nor very low degree of care and
competence judged in the light of particular circumstances of each case is what the law
requires. The doctor has also to choose the quality and amount of Medicare to be
provided to the patient.

(c) It is also submitted that the Respondents failed to provide the Petitioner medical
documents which were necessary for second opinion for further treatment which might
have helped patient recover part of his loss suffered, thus taking away a very valuable
opportunity at the right time. The act to deny medical documents necessary for further
treatment was deliberate and malafide.

(d) In the light of the aforesaid, the doctor have completely failed to take due care and
diligence towards the patient and due to administration of excessive anesthesia during the
operation made the Petitioner disable for his whole life and thus there arises a medical
negligence on the part of the Respondent.

3. Whether the meagre compensation awarded by the National Consumer Commission

is highly disproportionate to the injuries and mental agony suffered by the Petitioner and if
Yes, Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the relief of Rs 1.5 Cr compensation on the ground
of severe disability suffered by the Claimant owing to the medical negligence of KGHPL
(a) The Patient in the present case has suffered severe disability owing to the medical
negligence by the Hospital/Doctor and it is settled by law that the Medical negligence by
doctors and hospitals must be held liable for the deficiency in services, as provided in the
consumer laws in India and the victim must be compensated proportionately to the
sufferings faced by the victim. That the victim in the present case was the young male
member of 23 years and possible heir for the whole family members on whom whole
family would have dependent upon. The earnings of the victim and after the present
medical negligence of the Doctor/Hospital, the whole family has been put to irreparable
losses, financial crisis and severe mental agony and thus the victim is eligible and entitled
to an adequate compensation valued at Rs.1.5 Crore which is completely justified in the

19
given facts and circumstances of the case.

(b) 9.2 This Hon`ble Court has allowed the compensation of Rupees more than
Six Crore in the case of Medical negligence in CIVIL APPEAL No.692 of 2012
Advanced Medicare & Research Institute Ltd. Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors. The relevant
part of the judgement is being reproduced hereinafter:-

153. The Civil Appeal No. 2866/2012 filed by the claimant-Dr.Kunal Saha is also
partly allowed and the finding on contributory negligence by the National
Commission on the part of the claimant is set aside. The direction of the National
Commission to deduct 10% of the awarded amount of compensation on account
of contributory negligence is also set aside by enhancing the compensation from
Rs.1,34,66,000/- to Rs.6,08,00,550/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of
the complaint to the date of the payment to the claimant.

(c) The meagre amount of compensation awarded by the national Commission is

highly disproportionate to the grave sufferings faced by the Petitioner. The method and
basis of computation of compensation applied by the national commission was highly
incorrect and without appreciating the relevant facts of the sufferings of the victim and
the family circumstances of the victim`s family. The petitioner’s family has been put to
undue hardship, mental agony, and irreparable losses. The quantum of the compensation,
thus, need to be calculated by keeping all the relevant facts in the mind which would
quantify to Rs.1.5 crore in the given facts and circumstances of the case

20
 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS STATED, QUESTIONS PRESENTED,

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY

PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE GRACIOSULY PLEASED TO

ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THE FOLLOWING:-

(a) The Judgement of the Hon`ble High Court of Kundoor ordering Respondent to provide

information and medical reports to Petitioner may please be upheld.

(b) The compensation awarded by the Hon`ble National Consumer Forum is highly meagre

and disproportionate to the gravity of the injuries suffered by the petitioner-Mr. Maninder

and the same may be enhanced to Rs.1.5 Crore in the given facts and circumstances of the

case.

.(c) And to pass any such other order, discretion & judgment as this hon’ble court may deem

fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

21
All of which is respectfully submitted

Sd/- ______________________

Place: COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

22