TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... 03

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... 04

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................................... 05

STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... 06

ISSUES RAISED ........................................................................................................................ 08

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................. 09

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................... 10

ISSUE 1 : WHETHER THERE IS ANY MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CONSTITUTING

DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE OF THE PART OF THE RESPONDENTS UNDER THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT ,1986 ?

ISSUE 2 : IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMED CONSENT OF THE

PATIENT ?

ISSUE 3 : WHETHER THERE IS ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE QUICK HEAL
HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ? IF NEGLIGIENT, WILL THE PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY
BE ATTRACTED ?

ISSUE 4 : IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE PATIENT

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ?

PRAYER ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Page | 2
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. &: And

2. AIR: All India Reporter

3. Hon’ble: Honourable

4. Ltd: Limited

5. Pvt.: Private

6. SC: Supreme Court

7. SCC: Supreme Court Cases

8. SCR: Supreme Court Reports

9. Sec.: Section

10. v: Versus

Page | 3
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. STATUTES REFERRED:
1. Constitution of India

2. Indian Contract Act, 1872

3. Consumer Protection Act, 1986

II. TABLE OF CASES: Cases

1. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Anr (2005) 6 SCC 1

2. Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh & Others
(2021) SCC ONLINE SC 673

Page | 4
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE C OUNSEL FOR THE R ESPONDENTS, HEREBY HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THIS HON’BLE

COURT’ S JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF INDIA.

THE R ESPONDENT WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT THIS SPECIAL LEAVE FOR

APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE .

Page | 5
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 ON 17-02-18, MR.RAMASAMY (DECEASED) WAS BOUGHT TO THE

HOSPITAL BY HIS RELETIVES AS HE SUFFERED FROM BREATHLESSNESS
AND CHEST DISCOMFORT.
 DR.ARUN (CERTIFIED PROFESSONAL CARDIOLOGIST) COMPLETED THE
CHECK UP AND SUGGESTED SEVERAL TESTS WHICH INCLUDED ECG,
CHEST X-RAY, BLOOD TEST AND ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY . THE REPORTS
SHOWED THAT THE PATIENT SUFFERED FROM MYOCARDIAL
INFRACTION(HEART ATTACK) AND HIGH BLOOD SUGAR.
 PATIENT DIDN’T APPRISED DR.ARUN ABOUT ANY PRIOR TREATMENTS
HE TOOK OR CONSULTED ANY OTHER DOCTORS.
 DR. ARUN SUGGESTED ANGIOGRAM IN BEST INTEREST OF THE PATIENT
TO LOOK FOR BLOCKS IN THE BLOOD VESSELS.
 ON 18-02-18, AFTER PERFORMING ANGIOGRAMS, IT WAS FOUND THAT
THREE MAJOR VESSELS IN THE HEAT HAD BLOCKS RANGING FROM
70%-90%
 DUE TO ABOVESAID REASON, DR. ARUN REFERRED THE PATIENT TO DR.
DAVID (CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL CARDIOTHORACIC SURGEON) AND
HIS TEAM AS IT REQUIRED INTERVENSION OF MORE SUPERIOR AND
EXPERT PROFESSIONALS.
 DR. DAVID ADVISED THAT THE ONLY TREATMENT AT THIS JUNCTURE
WAS TO UNDERGO OPEN HEART BY PASS SURGERY(CABG)
 ON 20-02-18, AFTER GETTING THE FREE CONSENT OF THE PATIENT
THROUGH DOCUMENTATIONS, THE SURGERY WAS PERFORMED AND
THE PATIENT WAS SHIFTED TO INTENSIVE CORONARY CARE
UNIT(ICCU) UNDER FULL SUPERVISION OF DR. DAVID.
 ON 27-02-18 , PATIENT WAS FEELING BETTER AND WAS SHIFTED TO THE
WARD.
 ON 01-03-18, THE PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED WITH CARDIAC SUPPORT
MEDICATION AND ASKED TO COME FOR REVIEW 10 DAYS LATER.
 ON 09-03-18, THE PATIENT WAS BOUGHT AGAIN DUE TO PAIN FEVER
AND DISCOMFORT AND WAS ADMITTED BY DR. DAVID’S ASSISTANT
WHO WAS ALSO A CERTIFIED DOCTOR AS DR. DAVID WAS GONE

Page | 6
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 ABROAD TO ATTEND INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CONFERENCE .
 THE ASSISTANT INFORMED THE PATIENT ABOUT THE SURGICAL SITE
INFECTION WHICH WAS COMMONLY SAW IN PATIENTS AFTER OPEN
HEART BY PASS SURGERY AND TOOK A SWAB FOR CULTURAL
SENSITIVITY .
 ON 11-03-18, DR.DAVID RETURNED AND SOON AFTER HE STARTED THE
TREATMENT.
 THE INFECTION COULD ONLY BE TREATED BY GENTAMICIN OR
CEFIXIME. DR.DAVID ADVISED HIS ASSISTANT TO START CEFIXIME
INJECTION ON 12-03-18 AS GENTAMICIN INJECTIION DID NOT IMPROVED
THE SITUATION.
 PATIENT WAS STARTED ON CEFIXIME INJECTION AFTER A SUCCESSFUL
TEST DOSE.
 NEXT DAY AFTER SECOND DOSE, PATIENT COMPLAINED MILD ITCHING
AND PATIENT’S WIFE REPORTED THE MATTER TO STAFF NURSE ON
DUTY AND IMMEDIATELY, THE STAFF NURSE APPLIED THE
APPROPRIATE OINTMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF
 NEST DAY, AFTER SECOND DOSE OF THE INJECTIO N

Page | 7
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THERE IS ANY MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CONSTITUTING

DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENTS
UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTON ACT,1986 ?

2. IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMED CONSENT

OF THE PATIENT?

3. WHETHER THERE IS ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE QICK

HEAL HOSPITAL PVT.LTD.? IF NEGLIGENT, WILL THE PRINCIPLE OF
VICARIOUS LIABILITY BE ATTRACTED?

4. IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE PATIENT

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

Page | 8
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THERE IS ANY MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CONSTITUTING
DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENTS UNDER
THE CONSUMER PROTECTON ACT,1986 ?

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that in the given factual matrix, there is no
necessity or compulsion for the intervention of this Hon’ble Court and invoking its powers
under Article 136. There was no medical negligence constituting and deficiency in the part of
the respondent Doctors under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The National Comission
expressed the same while dismissing the matter.

2. IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMED CONSENT OF

THE PATIENT?

It is humbly submitted that there was no violation of right to informed consent of the patient.

3. WHETHER THERE IS ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE QICK

HEAL HOSPITAL PVT.LTD.? IF NEGLIGENT, WILL THE PRINCIPLE OF
VICARIOUS LIABILITY BE ATTRACTED?

It is humbly submitted that there was no negligence on the part of QUICK HEAL
HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.

4. IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE PATIENT

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

It is humbly submitted that there was no violation of right to life of the patient guaranteed
under ARTICLE 21 of the Constitution Of India

Page | 9
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THERE IS ANY MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CONSTITUTING

DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENTS UNDER
THE CONSUMER PROTECTON ACT,1986 ?

a. Irrespective of the locus standi of the Appellants, the Petition for Special Leave is not
maintainable.

b. As stated above in the facts, there is no mere negligence shown by any of the respondents
during the process of treatment of the patient and every respondent did there job with utmost
care and it is also held by the NATIONAL COMMISSION that there is no medical negligence
and no respondent should be held liale for the death of Mr. Ramasamy.

c. Recently, this Court in a judgment reported as Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v.

Joginder Singh & Others 1 held that hospital and the doctors are required to exercise
sufficient care in treating the patient in all circumstances. However, in an unfortunate
case, death may occur. It is necessary that sufficient material or medical e vi- dence
should be available before the adjudicating authority to arrive at the conclusion that
death is due to medical negligence. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be
considered to be medical negligence.

d. The National Commission held that the treatment and diagnostic methods were
certified by a team of experts that they were according to medical jurisprudence &
standards of medical practice and hence, there was no deviation from it.
RES ISPA LOQUITOR: RES ISPA LOQUITOR maxim is applied here as the patient did

not informed the respondents about the prior treatments which was a negligient act done by

the patient which resulted in such mishappening. If the patient would have told the doctors

about any prior treatments or any medicinal inta kes then the situation must have been

different.

Page | 10
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
e. In case of medical negligence, this Court in a celebrated judgment reported as Jacob
Mathew v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2 held that simple lack of care, an error of judgment
or an accident, is not a proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. The
land mark judgment of the three judges bench of Supreme Court practically absolves the medical
professionals of the liability of section 304-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

1. (2021) SCC ONLINE SC 673

2. (2005) 6 SCC 1

Page | 11
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
2. IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMED CONSENT OF
THE PATIENT?

a. There was no violation of the right to informed consent of the patient as all the
information is disclosed in the documentation and it is the duty of the signatory or the
patient to read all the paperwork including the consequences mentioned in the
document.

b. The consent of the patient was a free consent which fulfills all the requirements of the
conditions mentioned in Sec. 10 of THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

c. Consent was given by the patient after receipt of the following information :
The nature and purpose of the proposed procedure or treatment; the expected outcome
and the likelihood of success; the risks; the alternatives to the procedure and supporting
information regarding those alternatives; and the effect of no treatment or procedure,
including the effect on the prognosis and the material risks associated with no treatment.
Also included are instructions concerning what should be done if the procedure turns out
to be harmful or unsuccessful.

Page | 12
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
3. WHETHER THERE IS ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE QICK HEAL
HOSPITAL PVT.LTD.? IF NEGLIGENT, WILL THE PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS
LIABILITY BE ATTRACTED?

a. There is no negligence on the part of the QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. as no
breach of instructions and negligience has been seen by the staff on duty . They worked
according to the instructions of professionals.

b. As the NATIONAL COMMISSION held that the staff is not liable, then the QUICK
HEAL HOSPITALPVT. LTD. will not be vicariously liable.

4. IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE PATIENT

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

a. There is no violation of right to life of the patient guaranteed under article 21

b. The respondents and there team gave extensive efforts to save the life of the patient and
did what they can in a just and equitable manner and with a bonafide intention to save
the life of the patient

c. According to Article 21:

“Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law.”

d. The respondents were trying to protect the right to life of the patient by treating the
health problems faced by the patient.

Page | 13
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

Find that:

1. There is no expediency to invoke the jurisdiction of this court in the instant case;

2. There was no medical negligence by the Respondens.

3. There was no violation of Article 21

And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity, and good
conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.

Place: S/d

Date: (Counsel on behalf of the Respondents)

Page | 14
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-