MIT WPU SCHOOL OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -2

BEFORE THE HOUNARABLE SUPREME COURT

FOR THE MATTER OF

Mr X…………………………………………………………………..
PETITIONER

VS

UNION OF INDIA AND DERLY’S PRIVATE MEDICAL

HOSPITAL…………………………………….……..

RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

NAME- SASMIT PATIL

PRN-1182200068

DIV-A

DATE OF SUBMISSION-4/1/2022
1
2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................

STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................

STATEMENT OF ISSUES....................................................................

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...............................................................

PRAYER CLAUSE ..............................................................................

3
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

1. Gulabdas & Co. v. Assistant Collector of Customs 1957 AIR(SC) 733

2. State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga

3. Union of India v. Paul Nanickan

4. Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India

4
 ST
ATEMENT OF FACTS

The plaintiff, Mr. X suffered serious head injuries and brain haemorrhage after
falling off a train.

was turned away by various hospitals because the hospitals had inadequate medical
facilities or did not have a vacant bed to accommodate him.

Consequently, he had to seek treatment at a private hospital and incurred costly

expenditure for it. He went to DERLY’s Private Medical Hospital in Pune and
whilegetting the treatment, he was inflicted with an injection. Unfortunately, the
injection was wrongly administered to him as the nurse by mistake gave the
injection which had to be given to the AIDS patient.

As a result of this, he incurred a greater medical injury and had to be hospitalised

formore than 3 months. The hospital bill which was incurred by him was around
Rs 70lakh rupees.

5
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction?

2. Whether the hospital DERLY’s Private Medical Hospital was liable for
medical negligence?

3. Whether Right to Health of Mr. X is violated?

6
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction?

As per the facts, mr x has directly approached supreme court of india for his case. In
indian judiciary, one must follow the heriarcy to resolve his conflicts . that his he must
approach lower courts to resolve his conflicts and approach the apex court only if justice
is not done by the lower courts or when any of his fundamental right is violated . This
principle was highlighted in the supreme court judgement in in the case of Union of
India v. Paul Nanickan" in order to invoke jurisdiction under Article 32 to approach the
Supreme Court directly, it has to be shown as to why the High Court has not been
approached, could not be approached or it was futile to approach the high court."

 Article 32 guarantees the right to a constitutional remedy and relates only to the
enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. Unless a question of
the enforcement of a fundamental right arises, Article 32 does not apply. In the case
of Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India, it was held that Article 32 is applicable in cases
where there is a question of enforcement of fundamental rights. If the question of
enforcement of fundamental rights does not arise then Article 32 will not be applicable.

in our case The Constitution of India does not expressly guarantee a fundamental right to
health , instead it has mentioned it in the part 3 of the constitution Under the drirective
principles of state policy , and as per the article 37 DPSP are not justiciable in the
court .thus the petioner has no right to file for a petition under article 32. Thus the court
doesnot have the jurisdiction in this matter.

7
2. Whether the hospital DERLY’s Private Medical Hospital was liable for medical
negligence

Mr x was turned away by various hospitals because the hospitals had inadequate medical
facilities or did not have a vacant bed to accommodate him. Consequently, he had to seek
treatment at a private hospital and incurred costly expenditure for it. Thus DERLY’s
Hospital did a good job by providing him the immediate care that was needed by him.

The state hospital being funded by the state , sometimes lacks medical facilities due to
lack or delay in funds.thus a state facility cannot provide a totally free treatment for a
exepensive treatment .State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, the Supreme Court
recognised that provision of health facilities could not be unlimited. The Court held that it
has to be to the extent finance permits. No country has unlimited resources to spend on
any of its projects..

3. Whether Right to Health of Mr. X is violated?

The Constitution of India does not expressly guarantee a fundamental right to health.
Thus it is not Gauranteed by the constitution. The Directive Principles of State Policy in
Part IV of the India Constitution have some articles in reagards with health. Article 39
(E) directs the State to secure health of workers, Article 42 directs the State to just and
humane conditions of work and maternity relief, Article 47 casts a duty on the State to
raise the nutrition levels and standard of living of people and to improve public health.

8
 DPSP Being not justiciable, it is only moral obligation for the state to apply them.
Failing to enforce DPSP, the courts cannot ask States to Enforce the DPSP.

Mr x was denied admission due to the fact that there were no beds available in the
hospital As mentioned above in case .State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga , “ No State
of any country can have unlimited resources to spend on any of its project. That is why it
only approves its projects to the extent it is feasible. The same holds good for providing
medical facilities to its citizen including its employees”. Provision of facilities cannot be
unlimited. During the recent time of pandemic , it was not the fault of the government
that all the hospital beds were full. It is not always financially possible to give adequate
medical services like beds ,

Thus were can say that none of the fundamental rights of mr. x were violated by the State
government..

9
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsel for the respondents humbly request that this Hon’ble
may be pleased to declare that:

1. TO Declare no right to health was violated by the state.

2. To declare no severe medical negiligence was done on the part of DERLY’s
hospital

And pass any other order which this Hon’ble court deem fit in the light of justice,
equity and good conscience.

Respectfully
submitted COUNSELS FOR THE
RESPONDENTS

10