MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

TEAM CODE: T-10

7TH FRESHERS MOOT COURT 2024

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION OF ARYAVARTA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

MR. ROHIT CHATURVEDI ……………………………………………........ PETITONER

V.

PMRI HOSPITAL AND IT’S STAFF … .......................................................... RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER

DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF ARYAVARTA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

[1]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

5. ISSUES RAISED 10

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12

8. PRAYER 19

[2]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
& AND
S. SECTION
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SCDRC STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
GOVT. GOVERNMENT
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
SC SUPREME COURT
HON’BLE HONOURABLE
NCDRC NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V. VERSUS
ORS OTHERS
SC SUPREME COURT

[3]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

ARYAVARTA CASES

CASE NAME

Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha (1995)

Vijay Kumar Sharma vs. Fortis Hospital (2018)

V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital (2010)

Alok Misra vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi (2005)

Kusum Sharma & Ors. vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Ors. (2010)

Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005)

State of H.P. vs. Smt. Sanjana M. Wig (2003)

INTERNATIONAL CASES

Sacco vs. Miller Children’s Hospital (USA, 1985)

BOOKS REFERRED

Sr. No. BOOK AND AUTHOR

1. THE LAW OF TORTS - C. JAMNADAS & CO.

2. LAW ON CONSUMER PROTECTION – V. K. AGGARWAL

3. THE LAW OF TORTS – R. K. BANGIA

[4]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATUTES

Sr. No. STATUTES REFERRED

1. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

2. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

[5]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission of Aryavarta1, under Sec. 51 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Section 51 - Appeal to National Commission-

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers
conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 47 may prefer an appeal
against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the
order.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, issues and arguments.

____________________________
1
All laws of Aryavarta are pari materia to the Indian Constitution.

[6]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. Ramesh Chaturvedi, aged 68 years, is a resident of 71/A, Sector 3, Civil Lines, Teplana. Mr.
Ramesh lives with his wife, Mrs. Aarti Chaturvedi, aged 64 years. Teplana is a state in the country
of Aryavarta. All laws of Aryavarta are in pari materia with the laws of India.

2. Mr. Ramesh worked as an Accountant in Inkosys Ltd. Due to the stressful nature of his job Mr.
Ramesh relied on alcohol. He suffered from Hypertension from a very young age and took
medication for the same. Moreover as Mr. Ramesh grew older, he developed Osteoporosis.

3. On 8th October 2023 Mr. Ramesh suffered from a severe headache the whole day and by evening,
he had slight fever. After taking the paracetamol his wife gave him, he went to sleep. Next morning,
he noticed that he had developed rashes and blisters on his skin. His fever had not gone down and
he still had a headache. He suspected that he had contracted chicken pox and later that day, his
neighbour who visited him to check on his condition, confirmed the same.

4. Mrs. Aarti began using home remedies to treat Mr. Ramesh. She applied crushed neem leaves on his
skin to ease his discomfort. Mr. Ramesh, feeling uneasy, searched for online remedies to cure
chicken pox. He came across a site where it stated that a certain ‘anti-viral’ drug would cure chicken
pox within 3 days. Believing this, he ordered the same from ‘Netmedz’, a popular online medical
store. Mr. Ramesh took the anti-viral medication that he had ordered with great diligence and took
utmost care of himself. On 18th October 2023, he recovered from chicken pox.

5. After a few days, Mr. Ramesh’s son, Mr. Rohit Chaturvedi, celebrated his 31st birthday party where
the entire Chaturvedi family had gathered to celebrate the occasion. In the happy hour, he enjoyed a
few drinks with his son. The very next day at 3 am, Mr. Ramesh developed a high fever of 104°F
and a little discomfort while breathing. Mr. Rohit called PMRI (Progressive Medical Research
Institute) hospital and availed the hospital ambulance service. As Mr. Ramesh was having breathing
discomfort, his son asked the staff present to provide him with oxygen support. It was discovered
that the oxygen cylinder in the ambulance was empty. They arrived at PMRI hospital around 5 am
in the morning.

[7]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

6. PMRI hospital is one of the oldest private medical institutions in Teplana. It is a multi-speciality
hospital, famous for its specialization in orthopedics, which has been ranked No.1 in orthopedics
surgery by UK report in the year 2020-21. It has an exceptionally progressive record and is known
for its motto “Your life is precious to us”. The Hospital lacked in overall maintenance of hygiene
and equipment. Ultrasound machine, a basic testing machine was not available in the hospital. The
Hospital staff also failed to maintain cleanliness of the ward. The washrooms were covered with
fungus and were slippery which could lead to patients having a bad fall.

7. In the morning, there was insufficient staff available. After some time, one staff member gave the
patient a form to fill out, which included a number of tests that were to be conducted. The Hospital
staff did not provide any information regarding the tests. Despite not having any prior knowledge,
Mr. Ramesh signed the form. PMRI hospital has a policy of conducting HIV and HBsAg tests for
all their indoor patients but this policy is a voluntary act of the hospital and requires consent of the
patient. However, the Hospital staff conducted these tests without the prior consent of Mr. Ramesh.

8. Mr. Chaturvedi was attended by Dr. Agrawal, a renowned surgeon specializing in Musculoskeletal
disorders and orthopedics. Dr. Agrawal closely studied the test reports of Mr. Chaturvedi and
directed the Hospital staff to get an X-ray done. After examining the X-ray scan, Dr. Agrawal
diagnosed Mr. Ramesh with pneumonia and he was immediately admitted in the ICU.

9. He was kept in the ICU for 2 weeks where he was administered painkillers to prevent physical
distress and steroids to boost his immunity. He was also provided with physiotherapy. Lastly, Dr.
Agrawal conducted thoracentesis. On 10th November 2023 he was shifted to a general ward as his
condition improved. However, he still had cough and stiffness in the body.

10. On 12th November 2023, Mr. Chaturvedi developed a red patch in his neck-chest area which spread
throughout his body by afternoon. His skin started peeling, raw areas of skin surfaced and he faced
extreme irritation and discomfort. The Hospital conducted a skin biopsy to determine his condition,
where he was diagnosed with Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis.

[8]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

11. Since PMRI was an institution specializing in orthopedics, they lacked the equipment and the
procedure required to detect skin diseases. Thus, the Hospital could not provide any specific
treatment for the patient’s disease and were in the process of shifting the patient to another branch
of the institute which had the facilities to deal with the specific problems affecting the patient.
However, before they could transfer, the patient’s condition worsened and he developed liver
damage.

12. The PMRI hospital charged Rs.85,000/day in the ICU and another Rs.2,00,000/- for pathology
services, bed charges, ward medicines, nursing fees, food charges, x-ray and others. Ambulance
charges amounted to Rs.10,000/-.

13. On 12th December 2023 Mr. Rohit filed a complaint in Teplana State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission against PMRI hospital and its staff, alleging medical negligence. On 25th January 2024
the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission passed an order in favor of PMRI hospital as
the hospital did not fail to take due care of the patient. The Court was of the view that the complainant
failed to establish medical negligence on the part of the hospital and thus refused to grant Rs.
4,60,00,000/- as compensation prayed by the complainant. On 2nd February 2024 Mr. Rohit
aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, filed an
appeal in the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

[9]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the present appeal is maintainable in the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission?

II. Whether PMRI Hospital breached their duty to take care?

III. Whether PMRI Hospital is liable for consequential damage?

[10]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION?

The Appellant submits that, the appeal is maintainable under relevant provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act, as it concerns a dispute arising from alleged medical negligence and
consequent harm suffered by the consumer of the healthcare services.

II. WHETHER PMRI HOSPITAL HAS BREACHED THEIR DUTY TO TAKE CARE?

The Appellant submits that the PMRI Hospital has breached its duty of care towards Mr. Ramesh
Chaturvedi by failing to provide adequate medical treatment and maintain proper hygiene in the
hospital premises.

III. WHETHER PMRI HOSPITAL IS LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE?

The Appellant submits that the PMRI Hospital is liable for the consequential damages suffered
by Mr. Ramesh Chaturvedi, it also includes the development of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis and
liver damage, which took place because of the negligence of the hospital and its staff.

[11]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION?

The Appellant submits the appeal before the Hon’ble court that it is maintainable under relevant
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, as it concerns a dispute arising from alleged medical
negligence and consequent harm suffered by the consumer of the healthcare services.

A. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE AT NCDRC

[1] The Appellant submits that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019(CPA) protects the rights of
consumers and provides a legal framework for resolving complaints arising from unfair
practices, poor services or products.

[2] The Appeal is maintainable as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Consumer
Protection Act - “A complaint can be filed in NCDRC if the value of the claim exceeds one
crore.” The plaintiff has appealed for a compensation of Rs.4,60,00,000. The claim is
therefore legitimate.

[3] It is humbly submitted that the appeal falls within the scope of the Consumer Protection
Act as it is regarding a dispute related to the medical services by the PMRI Hospital to Mr.
Ramesh Chaturvedi. It claims for medical negligence and that the consequential harm that
occurred during the period of hospitalization was due to the poor/fault service from the
hospital’s side.

[4] The Appellant relies upon the case of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha
(1995)1: This case affirmed the jurisdiction of consumer forums to consider complaints
against healthcare service providers for deficiencies in service, including issues related to
informed consent, medical negligence, and patient rights. It established that disputes
regarding the provision of medical services fall within the jurisdiction of consumer
protection laws and can be appealed to consumer dispute redressal forums.

[12]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

[5] Vijay Kumar Sharma v. Fortis Hospital (2018)2: In this case, the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission held that consumer forums have jurisdiction to entertain
complaints against hospitals and healthcare providers for deficiencies in service, including
allegations of medical negligence.

[6] The Plaintiff further submits that the NCDRC has jurisdiction under Section 51 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019(CPA) to entertain appeals against the orders of the State
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. This appeal arose out of an order passed by the
Teplana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and is therefore within the
jurisdiction of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

Section 51- Appeal to National Commission- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order
made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii)
of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 47 may prefer an appeal against such order to
the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order

[7] The dispute refers to allegations of medical negligence and illness suffered by Mr. Ramesh
while undergoing treatment at PMRI Hospital. The dispute is related to the quality of the
healthcare services provided to the consumer.

Hence, the present appeal is maintainable in the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission.

______________________
1
AIR 1996 SC 550
2
982 of 2017

[13]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

II. WHETHER PMRI HOSPITAL BREACHED THEIR DUTY TO TAKE CARE?

The Appellant hereby submits that, the PMRI Hospital has breached its duty of care towards Mr.
Ramesh Chaturvedi by failing to provide adequate medical treatment and maintain proper hygiene in
the hospital premises.

A. NEGLIGENCE ON BEHALF OF PMRI HOSPITAL

[1] The Appellant hereby submits that there was negligence on behalf of the hospital in many
ways. There were empty oxygen cylinders in the ambulance, there were insufficient number
of staff members, there was lack of informed consent on behalf of the hospital.

The hospital performed tests and medical procedures on Mr. Ramesh Chaturvedi without
prior consent. Informed consent is the basic principle of health care that the hospital must
provide to the patients so that they understand the risks, benefits and alternatives of the
proposed treatment before consenting. In this manner, PMRI hospital has violated Mr.
Chaturvedi’s rights.

[2] It was also observed that the hospital’s inadequate number of staffs and lack of medical
equipment delayed the diagnosis and treatment resulting in harm to Mr. Ramesh
Chaturvedi. For example, absence of ultrasound machines, empty oxygen cylinders,
insufficient number of staff to approach.

[3] Dr. Aggarwal who attended Mr. Ramesh Chaturvedi was a renowned surgeon specialised
in Muscoskeletal disorders and Orthopaedics (speciality related to bones). It was observed
that Dr. Aggarwal conducted a medical process called Thoracentesis after pneumonia was
detected, whereas this medical treatment should be conducted by a doctor who is
specialized in infectious diseases or in lung diseases known as Pulmonologist. PMRI
Hospital and the staff where careless about the treatment as they could have made a
pulmonologist attend Mr. Ramesh after the diagnosis of pneumonia.

[14]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

[4] The Appellant relies upon the case of V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital3
(2010): The case highlighted the principle of vicarious liability in medical negligence cases,
stating “that hospitals can be held liable for the negligent acts of their employees, including
doctors and nursing staff”. It established that hospitals have a duty to ensure that their
employees provide competent and safe medical care to patients.

[5] The Plaintiff would like to invoke the principle of “causa causan” i.e. direct and proximate
cause for injury or damage. The Home remedies are the foremost medicine and a common
practice followed by the patients. It is in no way a direct cause for the illness of Mr.
Chaturvedi. The plaintiff and his family later approached PMRI hospital with expectations
of getting better. The situation in fact switched to being completely opposite and Mr.
Chaturvedi’s condition deteriorated.

[6] It is humbly submitted that despite the severity of Mr. Ramesh Chaturvedi's condition,
PMRI Hospital failed to transfer him to a facility. PMRI Hospital had a duty to ensure that
Mr. Chaturvedi should receive appropriate medical care, including timely transfer to a
facility equipped to handle his medical condition, which they failed to fulfil.

[7] The Appellant submits that PMRI Hospital failed to maintain proper hygiene standards
within its premises. Washroom floors were slippery and covered with fungus, which is
dangerous. Poor hygiene can contribute to the spread of infections and pose additional risks
to patients. By neglecting to maintain hygiene standards, PMRI Hospital had put Mr.
Ramesh Chaturvedi at increased risk of harm and failed to fulfil its duty to provide a safe
and sanitary environment for proper care.

[8] In the case of Alok Misra vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi (2005)4 the Delhi High Court
emphasized the duty of hospitals to maintain proper hygiene standards and ensure the safety
of patients. It was held that “Hospitals have a responsibility to provide a clean and safe
environment for patient care, and failure to do so may constitute medical negligence.”

[15]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Also, in case Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Ors.
(2010)5: This case underlined the importance of maintaining proper hygiene standards in
hospitals and ensuring patient safety. It held that “hospitals have a duty to provide a clean and
safe environment for patient care, and failure to do so may constitute medical negligence.”

Hence, PMRI Hospital breached their duty to take care.

_____________________________________________

3
2941 of 2010
4
2016 / 3098
5
AIR 2010 SC 1050

[16]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

III. WHETHER PMRI HOSPITAL IS LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE?

The Appellant states that PMRI Hospital is liable for the consequential damages suffered by Mr.
Ramesh Chaturvedi, it also includes the development of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis and liver
damage, which took place because of the negligence of the hospital and its staff.

A. PMRI HOSPITAL IS LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE?

[1] The Appellant hereby submits that there is a direct causal relationship between the
negligence of the PMRI Hospital and the injuries sustained by Mr. Ramesh Chaturvedi. The
hospital and their staff’s failure to meet the necessary hygiene standards and timely and
timely transfer to a facility had led to worsening Mr. Chaturvedi’s health.
Plaintiff would like to again give a reference of the mentioned case but through a different
aspect, V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital (2010): The case emphasized
the principle of vicarious liability in medical negligence cases, holding that hospitals can
be held liable for the negligent acts of their employees, including doctors and nursing staff.

[2] It is humbly submitted that Mr. Ramesh Chaturvedi has suffered consequential damage,
that is, the development of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis and liver damage. This represents
that Mr. Chaturvedi faced additional harm beyond his initial condition which required
treatment at PMRI Hospital. These complications arose as a result of negligence from the
hospital and their staff’s side.

[3] PMRI Hospital’s negligence also constitutes a violation of Mr. Ramesh Chaturvedi’s rights
as a patient, including the right to receive appropriate medical care and treatment. By failing
to uphold these rights and provide the standard of care expected in the medical profession,
the hospital breached its duty of care towards Mr. Chaturvedi, resulting in the consequential
harm suffered by him.

[4] The Appellant relies upon the case, Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005)6: In
this case, the SC of India clarified the standard of negligence applicable to medical
professionals and emphasized that medical negligence must be established based on a

[17]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent medical

practitioner. The court also recognized the liability for consequential damages resulting
from medical negligence.

[5] PMRI Hospital should be held liable for the consequential damage suffered by Mr. Ramesh
Chaturvedi and be required to provide appropriate compensation for the physical,
emotional, and financial losses incurred as a result of its negligence. This may include
compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of income, and other associated
damages resulting from the development of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis and liver damage.

[6] Similarly in the case of State of H.P. vs. Smt. Sanjana M. Wig (2003)7: The National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that hospitals may be held liable
for consequential damages resulting from medical negligence, including physical and
emotional harm suffered by patients. The NCDRC emphasized the duty of hospitals to
provide safe and effective medical care to patients.

[7] In summary, these arguments assert PMRI Hospital’s liability for the consequential damage
suffered by Mr. Ramesh Chaturvedi as a result of its negligence and failure to provide
appropriate medical care and treatment, and advocate for the hospital to be held accountable
for the harm caused to the patient.

6
AIR 2005 SC 3180
7
AIR 2005 SC 3454

[18]
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

PRAYER

In the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, and the authorities cited the
counsel on the behalf of the petitioner humbly pray before the Hon’ble National Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission of Aryavarta to:

1. Request to pass an order that the appeal is maintainable as NCDRC has jurisdiction under
Section 51 of the CPA, 2019 to entertain appeals against the orders of the SCDRC.
2. Request to pass an order that the PMRI Hospital has breached their duty to take care.
3. There is violation of legal right of Mr. Ramesh Chaturvedi and hence hold PMRI Hospital
liable for the consequential damage.

And pass the order, discretion, or relief that it may deem fit in best interests of Justice, Fairness,
Equity and Good Conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

All of which is humbly and respectfully submitted.

DATE: - 16/03/2024 (S.D./-)

PLACE: - National Consumer Dispute Redressal

Commission, Aryavarta (Counsels for the Petitioner)

[19]