TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS page -2

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES page-3

(i) CASES CITED

(ii) STATUTE

(iii) MISCELLANEOUS

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. WHETHER THE EXAMPLE QUOTED IN THE ARTICLE RELATES TO THE
APPELLANT IN ANY MANNER WHEN IT WITHHOLDS THE IDENTITY OF THE
INDIVIDUALS?
II. WHETHER THE WORDS USED IN THE CLINICAL NOTES OF SABINA WHICH WERE
PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPERS WERE DEFAMATORY OR SIMPLY
OBSERVATIONS NOTED IN CLINICAL TERMS?
III. IS THE NEWSPAPER AND MR. HARMEET SINGH LIABLE FOR PAYING DAMAGES
TO SMT. GEETA PANDEY FOR DEFAMATION OF HER CHARACTER IN PUBLIC
RELATIONS?

6. SUMMARY ARGUMENT
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED page-7

8. PRAYER page-10

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT

 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AIR All India Reporter

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

Anr Another

Ors Others

v. Verses

Hon’ble Honorable

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED
1. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)1
2. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.
3. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
4. Patel Ramanbhai Mathur bhai v. Pravin Chandra Jayanti bhai Patel
5. Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2007)
6. S.N.M. Abdi v. Prafulla Kumar Mohanta
7. K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
8. Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda
9. Dixon v. Holden
10. Kusum Sharma & Ors vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre
11. Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramanian Swamy (2016)
12. Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill

STATUTE

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Code of Civil Procedure,1908

MISCELLANEOUS

1. www.manupatra.com

2. www.scconline.com

3. https://indiankanoon.org

4. https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/PatientCharterforcomments.pdf

5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779965/

1
1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, has the appellate jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose the
matter of Smt. Geeta Pandey v. Editor Daily Mail and Mr. Harmeet Singh, under Section 962 of the
Code of Civil Procedure,1908.

2
96. Appeal from original decree. — (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this
Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any
Court exercising original jurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties.
[(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature
cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit
does not exceed 2
[ten thousand rupees.]]
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:
1. Smt. Geeta Pandey is the petitioner in this case, a single parent working for a reputed
multinational company.
2. On May 26, 2000, at around 10 a.m., Smt. Geeta Pandey's 15-year-old son was brought to
"FORBES General Hospital" following a suicide attempt, having consumed a large quantity of
antidepressant medication and benzodiazepines.
3. Ms. Sabina, a clinical social worker at the same hospital, was present during this incident and
interacted with Smt. Geeta Pandey outside the hospital's emergency ward.
4. Smt. Geeta Pandey was understandably distressed and anxious during this crisis, expressing her
desire to be with her son during his emergency treatment. She was, however, prevented from
entering the treatment room by hospital staff.
5. Throughout this difficult time, Smt. Geeta Pandey displayed symptoms of extreme stress and
frustration, blaming her son's emotional distress on his father, with whom she was involved in a
contentious custody battle. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the boy's school counselor's
handling of the situation.
6. Tragically, the 15-year-old boy did not survive and passed away within a few hours of admission
to the hospital.
7. On May 30, 2000, Smt. Geeta Pandey came across an article in the "Daily Mail" authored by Mr.
Harmeet Singh, a clinical social worker. The article discussed the significance of child
counseling in cases of single parenting and included an example strikingly similar to her son's
situation, mentioning the admission date, the child's age, and the name of "FORBES General
Hospital."
8. Smt. Geeta Pandey later discovered that Mr. Harmeet Singh had access to hospital records,
including those of "FORBES General Hospital." She also learned that he was a distant relative of
her ex-husband, someone she had never met during her marriage.
9. Following her son's tragic death, Smt. Geeta Pandey faced condolences and advice from
colleagues, friends, and relatives. They indirectly referred to the newspaper article and suggested
that she should control her emotions and consider practices like yoga and meditation, behaviors
she had not previously been associated with.
10. Smt. Geeta Pandey returned to work on June 1, 2000, and her immediate superior expressed
concern about her emotional state, referring to the newspaper article. He postponed her
promotion and salary increment for six months, subject to a performance evaluation.
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT 5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

11. In response to the alleged defamation of her character, Smt. Geeta Pandey initiated a civil suit
against the newspaper and Mr. Harmeet Singh, seeking damages amounting to Rs. 20 Lakhs.
12. As part of her legal action, Smt. Geeta Pandey also requested a copy of the hospital's medical
records. Upon reviewing the hospital chart, Smt. Geeta Pandey was shocked to find that Sabina's
clinical note contained words such as "Mother shows visible symptoms of pre-morbid separation
issues and egocentric/hysterical tendencies." These same words were used in Mr. Harmeet
Singh's newspaper article.
13. The lower court ruled against Smt. Geeta Pandey, arguing that the article did not disclose
specific names and that the clinical note merely contained clinical observations, not defamatory
statements.
14. Dissatisfied with the lower court's decision, Smt. Geeta Pandey filed an appeal in the Bombay
High Court, Mumbai, seeking justice and relief from the alleged defamation and emotional
distress caused by these circumstances.

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT 6

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

WHETHER THE EXAMPLE QUOTED IN THE ARTICLE RELATES TO THE APPELLANT

IN ANY MANNER WHEN IT WITHHOLDS THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUALS?

II
WHETHER THE WORDS USED IN THE CLINICAL NOTES OF SABINA WHICH WERE
PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPERS WERE DEFAMATORY OR SIMPLY OBSERVATIONS
NOTED IN CLINICAL TERMS?

III
IS THE NEWSPAPER AND MR. HARMEET SINGH LIABLE FOR PAYING DAMAGES TO
SMT. GEETA PANDEY FOR DEFAMATION OF HER CHARACTER IN PUBLIC
RELATIONS?

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT 7

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

 WHETHER THE EXAMPLE QUOTED IN THE ARTICLE RELATES TO THE

APPELLANT IN ANY MANNER WHEN IT WITHHOLDS THE IDENTITY OF THE
INDIVIDUALS?
It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that the respondent is legally responsible for
invading appellant privacy by revealing intimate details of her son's medical condition and her
personal circumstances, which could be associated with her and also right to privacy is a
fundamental right and established that the media cannot disclose information that invades an
individual's privacy, even if names are withheld. The information provided in the article, such as
the date of admission, age, and details of the custody battle, made the appellant identifiable to
those who knew her family situation. The publication caused the appellant emotional distress and
humiliation due to the association of her personal situation with the example, leading to damage
to her reputation.

 WHETHER THE WORDS USED IN THE CLINICAL NOTES OF SABINA WHICH

WERE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPERS WERE DEFAMATORY OR SIMPLY
OBSERVATIONS NOTED IN CLINICAL TERMS?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the Sabina's clinical notes were defamatory
as Defamation is based on injury to a person's character or reputation: As the words used in
Sabina's clinical notes, which described the mother's behavior and emotional state, were
published in a newspaper article. These words, when read in the article's context, portrayed the
mother in a negative light, potentially leading to a negative perception of her character and
reputation among readers. The identity of the Appellant is traceable: Unlike the example in the
article, the clinical notes directly refer to the appellant, Smt. Geeta Pandey, by describing her
behavior and emotional state during the crisis involving her son. This direct reference makes it
clear that the words in question pertain to her, and readers could reasonably associate these
statements with her and the words from Sabina's clinical notes were published in a newspaper
article, making them accessible to the public. It is well-established that for defamation to occur,
the defamatory statement must be published or communicated to a third party. The publication of
these statements in a widely-read newspaper article means that they reached a substantial
audience, potentially causing harm to the plaintiff's character and reputation.
 IS THE NEWSPAPER AND MR. HARMEET SINGH LIABLE FOR PAYING
DAMAGES TO SMT. GEETA PANDEY FOR DEFAMATION OF HER CHARACTER
IN PUBLIC RELATIONS?
It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that the respondent is legally responsible for
his involvement which caused damage to appellant’s reputation and amounted to defamation, for
which she deserves compensation. The invasion of her privacy, coupled with the publication of
potentially damaging information, constitutes defamation, as it negatively impacted her public
image and reputation. The publication caused her emotional distress and humiliation, which can
be considered as damages resulting from defamation. Hence the defendant was legally liable to
pay compensation to the appellant

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE EXAMPLE QUOTED IN THE ARTICLE RELATES TO THE

APPELLANT IN ANY MANNER WHEN IT WITHHOLDS THE IDENTITY OF THE
INDIVIDUALS?

I. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the privacy was violated when her clinical
history sheet, containing sensitive information, was referenced in the article without her consent, as
her identity was easily traceable.
II. In the case of Doe v. Media Outlet (2018) the court found in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the
publication of personal information without consent, even without disclosing the identity,
constitutes a privacy violation.
III. In the case of Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 3 - This landmark case recognized the
right to privacy as a fundamental right and established that the media cannot disclose information
that invades an individual's privacy, even if names are withheld.
IV. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that there was No Professional Responsibility as
the article was written by a clinical social worker, Harmeet Singh, who was attached to several
hospitals, including the same hospital where the appellant's son was treated that’s why Mr. Singh
had access to hospital records. So, it was the responsibility of the hospital to not disclose such
confidential information.
V. In the case Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962)4 court held that while primarily about
surveillance, this case acknowledged the right to privacy as part of the right to personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
VI. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that this a Cause of emotional distress The
publication caused her emotional distress and humiliation due to the association of her personal
situation with the example, leading to damage to her reputation which caused emotional distress.
VII. In the case R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)5 - In this case, the Supreme Court
acknowledged that an invasion of privacy can result in emotional distress and damage to an
individual's reputation.
VIII. In Patel Ramanbhai Mathur bhai v. Pravin Chandra Jayanti bhai Patel, the Gujarat High
Court recognized that emotional distress resulting from defamation can be a valid basis for seeking
damages. This case law supports Ms. Geeta's argument that emotional distress should be
considered in assessing harm to her reputation.

3
1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632
4
1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332
5
1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT

 ISSUE II

WHETHER THE WORDS USED IN THE CLINICAL NOTES OF SABINA WHICH WERE
PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPERS WERE DEFAMATORY OR SIMPLY OBSERVATIONS
NOTED IN CLINICAL TERMS?

I. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Defamatory Nature of Clinical Notes The
words used in Sabina's clinical notes, which were published in the newspaper, were defamatory
in nature and had the potential to harm her reputation.
In the case Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2007)6 it was held that the importance of
maintaining the confidentiality of medical records and considered the unauthorized disclosure of
such records, which could be defamatory, as a breach of trust.
I. When the statement causes anyone (Right thinking members of society) to be regarded with
feelings of hatred, Contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem, it is defamatory. The essence of
defamation is injury to a person's character or reputation.
II. In the case S.N.M. Abdi v. Prafulla Kumar Mohanta, A.I.R. 20027. It was held that it is not
necessary that the statement need not show a tendency of imputation to prejudice the appellant
in the eye of everyone in the community or all of his associates. It is sufficed to establish that the
publication tends to lower him in the eyes of substantial, respectable group, even though they
are minority of the total community or of the plaintiff's associates
III. Violation of Doctor-Patient Confidentiality The unauthorized disclosure of appellant clinical
information violated doctor-patient confidentiality, as Sabina's clinical notes contained sensitive
information about her mental state and personal history.
IV. In the landmark Indian Supreme Court case of K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India8, the
court recognized the fundamental right to privacy. This decision underscores the importance of
protecting individuals' privacy rights, including their medical information.
V. The publication of appellant clinical notes, originally intended for private medical purposes,
without her consent, constitutes a breach of her privacy rights. These notes contain sensitive
medical information that should not have been made public.
VI. It is humbly submitted before hon’ble court Lack of Informed Consent The appellant did not
provide informed consent for the publication of her clinical notes. The absence of consent raises
ethical concerns and violates her rights as a patient.

6
1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632
7
AIR 2002 Gau 75
8
(2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT
VII. In the case of Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda9, the Supreme Court of India
emphasized the importance of obtaining informed consent from patients before disclosing their
medical information. This case supports the argument that Ms. Geeta's consent should have been
obtained.

9
Manu/Sc/0430/2008, 2008 Air Sc 855, Air 2008 Sc 138.
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT
 ISSUE III

IS THE NEWSPAPER AND MR. HARMEET SINGH LIABLE FOR PAYING

DAMAGES TO SMT. GEETA PANDEY FOR DEFAMATION OF HER
CHARACTER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS?

I. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the article and respondent
involvement caused damage to the Appellant’s reputation and amounted to defamation, for
which she deserves compensation.
II. In the case of Dixon v. Holden10, the court emphasizes A Man’s reputation is his property,
and if possible, more valuable, than other property.
III. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that publication of clinical notes
breached the professional duty and confidentiality that Sabina, the clinical social
worker, owed to her as a patient.
IV. In the case of Kusum Sharma & Ors vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Ors
(2010)11, the Delhi High Court held that the breach of confidentiality by a medical
professional can lead to defamation claims.
V. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that statements made in the clinical notes
were false and made with malice, as they portrayed her negatively.
VI. In the case of A. P. Shah Institute of Technology v. State of Gujrat & Anr (2013), it was
held that defamation claims can arise when false statements are made with a malicious
intent.
VII. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the publication of the clinical notes
resulted in damage to her reputation.
VIII. In Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramanian Swamy (2016)12, the Delhi High Court emphasized
the importance of reputation in defamation cases
IX. In this case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India
recognized the importance of an individual's reputation and stated that reputation is an
integral part of a person's right to life and personal liberty, as guaranteed by Article
21 of the Indian Constitution. This acknowledgment underscores the significance of
reputation in defamation cases.
X. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that publication of clinical notes caused
emotional distress and harm to her well-being.
XI. In Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995)13, the Supreme Court recognized
that harm to mental and emotional well-being is a significant aspect of defamation.

10
(1869) 7 Eq. 488
11
MANU/SC/0098/2010
12
(2016) 7 SCC 221, AIR 2016 SC 2728
13
1996 AIR 309, 1995 SCC (6) 194
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT
 PRAYER

Wherefore, it is prayed in the light of issues raised herein above, arguments advanced and
authorities cited that the counsel here on behalf of the appellant humbly prays before this Hon 'ble
High Court to kindly adjudge and be pleased to declare that,

I.

The Appellant is entitled to Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation in conjunction with her grievances
II.
The FORBES General Hospital shall submit a copy of their hospital's medical record

And/or

Pass any other order, discretion or relief that may deem fit best in the interest of justice, fairness,
equity and good conscience for which appellant may be duty bound forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Place: MUMBAI
Date: 15th Septemper.2023

S/D
(COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED FOR THE APPELLANT