Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner - Sparsh V Gov of Indices

8th S.N.D.
T NATIONAL LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2024
KGLS0017
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF INDICES
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICES
SPRASH NGO ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………PETITIONER
V.
GOVERNMENT OF INDICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………RESPONDANT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 1

8th S.N.D.T NATIONAL LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Table of contents………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
2. List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………………. 3
3. Index of Authorities…………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
4. Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………………………... 5
5. Statement of Facts………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
6. Issues involved………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
7. Summary of Arguments…………………………………………………………………………………. 8
8. Arguments Advanced……………………………………………………………………………………. 10
9. Prayers……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM
& and
A.I.R. All Indices Reporter
S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

Hon’ble Honourable
v. Versus
ART Assisted Reproductive Technology

ISAR Indian Society of Assisted Reproduction
ICMR Indian Council of Medical Research
NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NMC National Medical Commission

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)
2. Kusum Sharma vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre (2002)
3. Parmanand Kataria v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 2039[1]),
4. Gobind v. State of MP & ANR (1975 SCC (2) 148)
5. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
6. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651
7. Indian Medical Association v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8170 OF 2009)
8. State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998)
9. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi 1981 (AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516)
10. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995)
11. Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Another (2008)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has filed the present Public Interest Litigation to seek regulatory rules and regulations on
medical malpractices and issues arising out of illegal and unethical standards in the services related to
fertility treatments and procedures. Hence the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court under its
jurisdiction as vested in Article 226 of the Constitution of Indices and prays before the Hon’ble Court
that the petition stands admitted and the prayers as made by the petitioner at the end of this petition be
allowed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
• Sumit, a 27-year-old engineer, and Sagarika, a 25-year-old model, got married on September
30, 2019, and wished to start a family. However, despite all efforts, Sagarika did not conceive.
• In February 2022, the couple approached SNEHAL Diagnostics, a well-known IVF and Child
Diagnostic Centre in Mumbai, where doctors confirmed that Sumit's sperm count was
extremely low, making fertilization impossible.
• The clinic recommended the couple undergo IVF treatment with a sperm donor, quoting
professional charges and other expenses amounting to Rs. 3,00,000, with 50% to be paid in
advance and an additional Rs. 60,000 payable to the donor.
• The first round of embryo transplantation was conducted on July 10, 2022, but the procedure
failed, and Sagarika did not conceive.
• The second round of IVF was conducted, and the procedure was physically traumatic for
Sagarika. The embryo transplantation on October 2, 2022, also failed due to low-quality
embryos.
• The third transplantation on March 8, 2023, was equally unsuccessful, leading to significant
physical and mental trauma for Sagarika.
• The total expenditure on the treatment, including various supplementary costs, injections, oral
medicines, ultrasounds, traveling, and therapy sessions, amounted to around Rs. 18,00,000.
• Sagarika suffered from depression and was given oral medication to overcome the trauma.
• The couple, after meeting another fertility specialist, Dr. Jatin Shah, discovered starkly
contrasting medical reports and realized that they were allegedly cheated and looted by
SNEHAL Diagnostics.
• They filed an FIR against SNEHAL Diagnostics under sections 336, 337, and 338 of the Indian
Penal Code and an Intervention Application in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking justice
for the losses incurred.
• The legal issues in the case include the maintainability of the PIL, the Intervention Application
filed by Sagarika, the authority of the Government of Indices to interfere in medico-legal issues,
and the authority to provide guidelines regarding professional fees for IVF treatment.

ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER PIL IS MAINTAINABLE?
2. WHETHER THE INTERVENTION APPLICATION FILED BY SAGARIKA IS MAINTAINABLE?
3. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICES HAS AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE IN MATTERS

PERTAINING TO THE MEDICO LEGAL ISSUE?
4. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICES HAS AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES

REGARDING PROFESSIONAL FEES QUOTED FOR IVF TREATMENT?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
It is submitted that the PIL filed by SPARSH is maintainable before this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner
asserts locus standi based on public interest and representative standing, as recognized in the landmark
case of Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982). The PIL addresses widespread unethical practices
in the fertility treatment industry, advocating for regulatory rules and regulations to safeguard the rights
and dignity of individuals seeking such services. The issues at hand encompass various ethical concerns
within Indices’ ART industry, including inadequate informed consent, financial exploitation, gender
selection, exploitation of surrogates and donors, data privacy breaches, and unethical marketing. The
absence of standardization, transparency, and regulation in ART clinics has led to vulnerable patients
being coerced into procedures, subjected to financial burden, and exposed to unnecessary risks.
2. WHETHER THE INTERVENTION APPLICATION FILED BY SAGARIKA IS

MAINTAINABLE?
It is submitted that the Intervention Application filed by Sumit and Sagarika should be deemed
maintainable. As individuals who have undergone fertility treatments, they possess valuable expertise
and insight into the challenges of the ART sector. Their intervention enriches the evidentiary record,
providing nuanced perspectives and empirical evidence. Sumit and Sagarika's intervention aligns with
public interest, advocating for transparency, accountability, and ethical standards in healthcare,
especially in fertility treatments. Their participation contributes to public health and protects
fundamental rights.
3. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICES HAS AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE IN

MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE MEDICO LEGAL ISSUE?
It is submitted that the Government of Indices indeed possesses the authority to intervene in medico-
legal matters, supported by legal provisions and strong arguments. The Indices Constitution empowers
Parliament and State Legislatures to enact laws for public health, safety, and welfare, including
regulations for medical practice. The executive branch, through bodies like the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, enforces these laws. The judiciary, including the Supreme Court, acts as a check on
government actions. Indices’ commitment to international agreements, reinforces its authority to
intervene for human dignity and the right to health.


It is submitted that the Government of India has the authority to set guidelines for IVF treatment fees, as
mandated by the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010. These guidelines
protect patients from unfair pricing, ensure transparency, and promote access to quality healthcare. By
establishing clear fee structures, the government encourages high standards in IVF services, prevents
compromises in patient care, and empowers patients to make informed choices. This authority is
supported by legal frameworks like the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019, ensuring ethical practices in the healthcare industry.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
In accordance to the fact sheet, the PIL was filed by SPARSH1, A Non-Government Organization before the
High Court, Mumbai thereby seeking regulatory rules and regulation on medical malpractices and issues
arising out of illegal and unethical standards in the services related to fertility treatments and procedure.
The petitioner is entitled to appropriate relief under the provisions of Article 226 2 of the Constitution of
India, provided it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court of Bombay that the petitioner has a
sufficient interest in the matter and that their Legal rights or Fundamental Rights or both have been violated.
Locus Standi:
• Public Interest: The issues addressed in the PIL have broader implications beyond individual cases,
affecting the general public seeking such services. Therefore, the PIL is seen as serving the public
interest by advocating for the enforcement of legal standards and regulations to ensure the provision
of safe, ethical, and quality healthcare services in the field of fertility treatments. they aim to
promote the collective welfare and address broader societal concerns.
• Representative Standing: The petitioner acts on behalf of people affected by malpractice prevalent
in field of fertility treatment and procedure is mainly due to Lack of Standardization and
Regulations.
The case of Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)3, also known as the Asiad Workers Case, was
a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that significantly expanded the scope and principles
of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
• Expanded Locus Standi: The court recognized that any person or organization can file a PIL
petition on behalf of others who are unable to do so themselves.
• Power of Judicial Review: The court asserted its power to issue directions and orders to enforce
fundamental rights, even in areas traditionally considered executive domain.
1 The petitioner in the instant case

2 Constitution of Indices PariMateria to Constitution of India (hereafter referred to as Constitution of India)
3 Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235: A Landmark Case for Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
ETHICAL CONCERNS IN INDIA'S ART INDUSTRY
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before the High Court of Mumbai is indeed maintainable
primarily because of the absence of robust regulations and enforcement mechanisms has allowed
unethical practices to thrive, necessitating judicial intervention to uphold the rights and dignity of
individuals seeking fertility treatment.
Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs) are widely used in India to provide fertility treatment to
people facing infertility. Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs), comprising a range of
technologies aimed at aiding conception, has witnessed exponential growth in India, offering hope to
countless couples struggling with infertility.
ETHICAL CONCERNS:
Informed Consent
Inadequate Explanation: ART clinics fail to provide comprehensive information to couples

undergoing fertility treatments, leading to uninformed decisions. This lack of transparency can result in
patients consenting to procedures without fully understanding the risks, success rates, and alternative
options available to them. As a consequence, couples may be subjected to unnecessary or experimental
treatments, exposing them to potential harm and exploitation, particularly when they are desperate to
conceive and facing emotional pressure.
The increasing number of private clinics offering these services, there is a risk that couples may not
receive adequate counseling or fully understand the risks and costs involved in ART procedures. This
lack of understanding can leave them susceptible to manipulation and exploitation.
Lack of Standardization: Consent forms used in ART clinics may lack standardization and is not
translated into local languages, hindering clear understanding. This inconsistency in the documentation
process further exacerbates the issue of informed consent, as patients may not be able to fully
comprehend the terms and conditions outlined in the consent forms. Consequently, patients may
unknowingly agree to procedures or treatments that they would not have consented to with full
understanding.
Financial Exploitation
High Costs and Lack of Transparency: ART treatments are often prohibitively expensive, and
patients may not be fully informed about the costs involved. Some clinics may engage in predatory
pricing practices, inflating the costs of treatments and procedures without providing transparent
information to patients. As a result, couples seeking fertility treatments may find themselves financially
burdened and vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous clinics.

Unnecessary Procedures: In pursuit of financial gain, some ART clinics may recommend unnecessary
or experimental procedures to patients. These unnecessary interventions not only increase the financial
burden on couples but also expose them to additional risks and potential complications. By prioritizing
profit over patient well-being, these clinics undermine the trust and integrity of the fertility treatment
industry.
Gender Selection
Illegal Practices: Sex selection for non-medical reasons is prohibited by law, yet some clinics continue
to engage in these illegal practices. Couples may be offered the option to choose the sex of their child,
leading to ethical concerns regarding gender bias and discrimination. Moreover, the prevalence of
unreported cases of sex selection further underscores the need for stringent regulations and
enforcement mechanisms in the ART industry.
Surrogacy
Exploitation of Surrogates: Surrogates are often exploited by ART clinics, with inadequate
compensation, poor living conditions, and pressure to continue pregnancies with risks being common
issues. These exploitative practices not only violate the rights and dignity of surrogates but also
endanger their physical and emotional well-being. The lack of legal framework and oversight
exacerbates the vulnerability of surrogates, leaving them susceptible to exploitation and abuse.
Donor Gametes
The concern about unethical practices encompasses not only the procedures but also the broader context
in which they are conducted, including the ethical considerations related to the individuals participating
in these procedures, such as donors and recipients.
Lack of Transparency: Information about sperm and egg donors may not be transparently disclosed to
couples undergoing fertility treatments. Anonymous donors may not provide comprehensive genetic
histories or medical information, raising concerns about the potential risks associated with donor
gametes. This lack of transparency deprives patients of the opportunity to make fully informed decisions
about their treatment options, undermining the principle of autonomy and informed consent.
Exploitation of Donors: Donors, both sperm and egg, may be subjected to exploitation by ART clinics,
with inadequate compensation, coercion, or pressure to donate being common issues. Vulnerable
individuals may be targeted and manipulated into donating gametes without fully understanding the
implications or risks involved. By exploiting donors for financial gain, clinics perpetuate a cycle of
exploitation and unethical practices within the ART industry.

Data Privacy
Confidentiality Concerns: Patient data collected during fertility treatments may be inadequately
protected, leading to concerns about data privacy and confidentiality. Without robust safeguards in
place, patient information may be vulnerable to misuse, unauthorized access, or breaches in
confidentiality. This lack of data privacy undermines patient trust and confidence in the ART industry,
posing significant ethical and legal concerns.
Unethical Marketing
Exaggerated Claims and Misleading Information: Some ART clinics may engage in unethical
marketing practices, using exaggerated success rates, false promises, or misleading information to attract
patients. By preying on the emotional vulnerability of individuals seeking fertility treatments, these
clinics manipulate patients into undergoing procedures that may not be in their best interests. Such
deceptive marketing tactics erode trust and integrity within the ART industry, perpetuating a culture of
exploitation and misinformation.
Highlighting the various malpractices and ethical concerns within the ART industry is to underscores the
urgent need for regulatory rules and regulations to safeguard the rights and well-being of patients
seeking fertility treatments and procedures and to hold ART clinics accountable for their actions and
advocate for stricter enforcement of ethical standards and patient protections.
Unethical practices in ART are a serious concern in India, impacting individuals, society, and the
healthcare system. This has a wider implication on public at large, Unethical practices in ART can
significantly impact the fundamental and legal rights of citizens in India in several ways.
Impact on Fundamental Rights:
The proliferation of unethical practices within the ART industry poses a grave threat to fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. These violations not only undermine the dignity and
autonomy of individuals but also jeopardize their health and well-being.
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."
This article has been interpreted by the Indian judiciary to encompass a broad range of rights, including
the right to bodily integrity, privacy, dignity, and autonomy.
Unethical practices, such as individuals undergoing fertility treatments may be pressured into consenting
to procedures against their will, infringing upon their right to personal liberty and bodily integrity.

Right to Informed Consent and Bodily Autonomy:

Patients have the right to informed consent before any medical procedure, including ART. Unethical
practices that mislead or pressure individuals into consenting violate this right. Further, Individuals have
the right to make decisions about their own bodies, including reproductive choices. Unethical practices
that exploit surrogates or coerce individuals into unwanted procedures violate this right.
Kusum Sharma vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre (2002)4: In the case of Kusum
Sharma vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre (2002), the Supreme Court of India addressed the
issue of medical negligence and the importance of informed consent in medical procedures. Kusum
Sharma, the petitioner, underwent a surgery at Batra Hospital, during which she suffered complications
leading to permanent disability.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the significance of informed consent in medical
treatments. It held that doctors have a duty to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and alternatives
of a proposed medical procedure, allowing patients to make informed decisions about their healthcare.
The court reaffirmed that the right to informed consent is an essential component of a patient's right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It emphasized the need for healthcare providers to adhere to high standards of professionalism,
competence, and diligence in the treatment of patients. The judgment underscored the accountability of
medical professionals and institutions in ensuring patient safety and quality of care.
Right to Life and Personal Liberty:
Deaths of Sushma Pandey and Yuma Sherpa, both young women who tragically lost their lives while
undergoing egg donation procedures, underscore the grave risks associated with unchecked exploitation
in the ART industry. Pandey, a 17-year-old, and Sherpa, a 24-year-old mother, were lured by promises
of financial gain, only to suffer fatal consequences due to inadequate oversight and substandard medical
care.
Right to Health: Unethical practices that compromise patient safety, utilize substandard procedures, or
lack informed consent constitute a blatant violation of the right to health guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution. Patients undergoing fertility treatments have the legitimate expectation of
receiving safe, effective, and ethical care. However, the prevalence of exploitative practices within ART
clinics undermines this expectation, jeopardizing the health and well-being of patients.
4 https://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx

Healthcare is rightly recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21, encompassing not only
the provision of medical care but also the protection of individual health. The Supreme Court, in
Parmanand Kataria v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 20395), the Apex Court emphasized the
importance of extending healthcare services with due expertise to protect life. However, the
prevalence of unethical practices within the ART industry undermines this constitutional
mandate, exposing individuals to risks and harm.
The Daljinder Kaur Case6- Daljinder Kaur's decision to undergo fertility treatment at the age of
72, facilitated by Dr. Anurag Bishnoi, raises serious concerns about the preservation of life and
personal liberty. Despite warnings from medical experts, Kaur's pursuit of motherhood at an
advanced age not only jeopardized her own life but also raises questions about the ethical
boundaries of medical intervention.
Dr. Anurag Bishnoi's assertion that age limits for fertility treatment are arbitrary and unnecessary
reflects a dangerous mindset that prioritizes experimentation over patient safety. By subjecting
individuals to risky procedures without regard for their well-being, such practices undermine the
fundamental right to health and violate the sanctity of human life.
Right to Dignity and Privacy: Exploitative practices, lack of confidentiality, and unethical data
handling infringe upon the right to dignity and privacy protected under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. Patients undergoing fertility treatments have a legitimate expectation of privacy
and dignity throughout the process. However, the prevalence of exploitative practices within
ART clinics compromises this expectation, exposing patients to breaches of confidentiality and
violations of their personal autonomy.
Privacy extends beyond mere physical boundaries to encompass personal autonomy,

informational self-determination, and dignity. In the case of Gobind v. State of MP & ANR
(1975 SCC (2) 148), the Supreme Court of India indeed introduced the compelling state interest
test in the context of privacy rights. This test emphasizes the need to balance an individual's right
to privacy with larger state interests.
The court held that while the right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian
Constitution, it is implicit in the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 (Right to Life
and Personal Liberty). The compelling state interest test requires the state to demonstrate a
5 https://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx
6
“India's fertility industry: Where hope and exploitation collide” (Al Jazeera, 2019)

compelling need for infringing on an individual's privacy rights, and such infringement must be
proportional to the state interest being pursued.
The failure to regulate unethical practices within the Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART)
industry undermines this delicate balance between privacy rights and larger state interests.
Unregulated practices in the ART industry can expose patients to violations of their privacy,
dignity, and bodily autonomy, highlighting the need for ethical guidelines and regulatory
frameworks to protect the rights of individuals seeking fertility treatments.
Thus, the rampant prevalence of unethical practices within the ART industry poses a severe
threat to fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. The State has a
constitutional obligation to safeguard these rights and must take urgent measures to regulate the
ART industry effectively. Failure to do so not only undermines the integrity of the healthcare
system but also perpetuates injustice and exploitation against vulnerable individuals seeking
fertility treatments.
Impact on Legal Rights:

• Right to Fair Treatment: Patients have the right to fair and ethical treatment from
healthcare providers. Unethical practices like inflated costs, discriminatory practices, and
lack of transparency violate this right.
• Right to Access Justice: Individuals have the right to seek legal recourse if their
fundamental and legal rights are violated. However, complex legal frameworks,
inadequate enforcement, and lack of awareness can hinder access to justice in cases of
unethical ART practices.
This is mainly due to Lack of Standardization and Regulations, Varying standards of care and lack of
robust regulations across clinics which create loopholes for malpractices. The absence of a
comprehensive legal framework for ART, creates loopholes for unethical practices to flourish. The
opaque nature of some clinic practices and weak accountability mechanisms make it difficult to address
unethical practices effectively.
Unethical practices in ART can erode public trust in the healthcare system. A strong regulatory body
could help restore trust by ensuring transparency, accountability, and ethical practices within the
industry.

2. WHETHER THE INTERVENTION APPLICATION MAINTAINABLE?
The Intervention Application filed by Sumit and Sagarika should be deemed maintainable. As
individuals who have undergone fertility treatments and experienced firsthand the challenges and
consequences of unethical practices within the ART sector, Sumit and Sagarika possess valuable
expertise and insight that can contribute to the court's understanding of the complexities involved.Their
intervention can provide nuanced perspectives, personal testimonies, and empirical evidence that enrich
the evidentiary record and inform the court's deliberations.
While PILs are primarily aimed at addressing issues of public importance and promoting the collective
welfare of society, they also serve as a platform for advocacy and social reform. Sumit and Sagarika's
intervention aligns with the broader public interest in ensuring transparency, accountability, and ethical
standards in the healthcare sector, particularly in the context of fertility treatments. By actively
participating in the litigation process, they contribute to the advancement of public health and the
protection of fundamental rights.
Sumit and Sagarika's intervention contributes to the broader goals of social justice and equity by
advocating for reforms that promote fairness, transparency, and ethical standards in the ART industry.
Their participation helps amplify the voices of affected individuals, thereby strengthening the PIL's
impact and effectiveness in addressing systemic injustices and promoting positive change.
UNETICAL PRACTICE OF SNEHAL DIAGNOSTICS
It is evident through the facts of the instant case that the couple was Desperate to conceive, Sumit and
Sagarika placed their trust in Snehal Diagnostics, hoping for a miracle. However, instead of Fulfilling
the duty of care that a doctor were obligated to provide them, they were met with vague reports and
ambiguous recommendations. Snehal Diagnostics breached its duty of care to Sumit and Sagarika by
failing to provide sufficient and clear information about their fertility treatments, resulting in harm to the
couple.
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
In this landmark case from the United Kingdom, the court established the principle of the standard of
care owed by medical professionals to their patients. the case also establishes that a doctor has a duty to
provide sufficient information to their patients about the risks involved in treatment. If a patient is not
adequately informed of these risks and suffers harm as a result, the doctor can be found negligent.
the case of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee supports the assertion that doctors,
including those at Snehal Diagnostics, have a duty of care to provide clear and unambiguous information
to their patients. If they fail to fulfill this duty, as alleged in the case of Sumit and Sagarika, it can be
considered a breach of their duty of care.
Sumit and Sagarika placed their trust in Snehal Diagnostics, hoping for successful fertility treatments.
However, instead of fulfilling their duty of care by providing clear and unambiguous information, the
clinic allegedly provided vague reports and ambiguous recommendations. This failure to provide
adequate information may have led to the couple's suffering and loss, which aligns with the principles
established in the Bolam case.
Sumit and Sagarika were made to undergoing the procedure not once, but thrice, each attempt draining
their finances and diminishing their hopes. Snehal Diagnostics preyed on their vulnerability, exploiting
their deepest desires for financial gain, without regard for the emotional and financial burden on the
couple.
As Sagarika's health deteriorated with each unsuccessful attempt, it became painfully clear that Snehal
Diagnostics prioritized profit over patient well-being. Their reckless disregard for Sagarika's health
violated her fundamental right to health, leaving her physically and emotionally depleted.
Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of exploitation of patients by medical professionals
for financial gain. The court held that doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of their patients and
cannot prioritize financial gain over patient care. Snehal Diagnostics' exploitation of Sumit and
Sagarika's vulnerability, would align with the principles laid down in this case law. It supports the
assertion that the clinic's profit-driven approach was unethical and detrimental to the couple's well-
being.
The stark juxtaposition between Dr. Jatin's conscientious care and Snehal Diagnostics' profit-driven
approach highlights the systemic issues plaguing the fertility industry. Their distressing experience
serves as compelling evidence of the imperative to implement measures safeguarding the rights and
well-being of vulnerable individuals. It underscores the necessity for judicial intervention to address
systemic issues and ensure equitable access to ethical and safe fertility treatments.

3. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICES HAS AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE IN MATTERS

PERTAINING TO THE MEDICO LEGAL ISSUE?
Yes, the Government of India possesses the authority to intervene in matters related to medico-legal
issues, and several positive arguments support this assertion within the framework of law. As, The
Indian Constitution grants the Parliament and State Legislatures the authority to enact laws concerning
public health, safety, and welfare. This includes laws regulating medical practice, healthcare facilities,
and medico-legal procedures. Through legislation, the government can establish legal frameworks to
address issues such as medical malpractice, forensic investigations, and patient rights. Secondly, The
executive branch of the government, including ministries and regulatory bodies like the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, is empowered to enforce laws and regulations related to healthcare and
medico-legal matters. These authorities oversee the implementation of laws, formulate policies, and
ensure compliance with legal standards in the healthcare sector. The judiciary on the other hand
including the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts, acts as a check on governmental actions
related to medico-legal issues. Courts interpret laws, adjudicate disputes, and ensure that governmental
interventions are lawful and consistent with constitutional principles, including the protection of
fundamental rights and access to justice.
In the case of the case of Indian Medical Association v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8170
OF 2009). the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of the Clinical Establishments
(Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, which aimed to regulate clinical establishments to ensure
minimum standards of facilities and services. The court in this case recognized the importance of
government intervention in regulating medical practice to safeguard public health and ensure quality
healthcare services. It emphasized the state's duty to protect the fundamental right to health of citizens
and upheld the validity of legislative measures aimed at achieving this objective. Another significant
case of State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998)7, where the Supreme Court emphasized the state's
role in regulating medical practice and ensuring the integrity of medical professionals. The court held
that the state government has the authority to take action against erring medical practitioners to protect
public health and prevent malpractice. Government intervention in medico-legal matters is necessary to
protect public health, safety, and welfare. By regulating medical practices, ensuring quality healthcare
services, and upholding ethical standards, the government safeguards the interests of patients, healthcare
professionals, and society as a whole.
Indices being Independent State is a signatory to various international agreements and conventions
related to healthcare, human rights, and medical ethics. The government has the authority to enact laws
and policies to fulfill its obligations under these agreements, which may include interventions in
medico-legal issues to ensure compliance with international standards and norms. Various international
7 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1563564/

human rights instruments that India is a signatory to, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).In
the landmark Judgement of Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi 1981
(AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516) 8the Supreme Court of India recognized the right to health and medical
care as a fundamental right implicit in the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The
court emphasized the importance of upholding human dignity and protecting the health of individuals,
including prisoners. This case underscored India's commitment to international human rights principles,
such as the right to health, and influenced subsequent government interventions to improve healthcare
access and standards.


Yes, Under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, the government has the
authority to regulate clinical establishments, including IVF clinics, to ensure quality healthcare delivery
and protect patient interests. Government of Indices possesses the authority to provide guidelines
regarding medico legal issues.
Since, The government has a responsibility to ensure access to affordable and quality healthcare services
for its citizens. By providing guidelines on professional fees for IVF treatment, the government can
protect the interests of patients and ensure that they are not subjected to exorbitant or exploitative
pricing by healthcare providers. The government has the authority to regulate various aspects of
healthcare delivery, including pricing and billing practices. This authority stems from legislation such as
the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, which empowers the government
to prescribe standards for healthcare services, including fees charged by medical practitioners.
Guidelines on professional fees for IVF treatment serve to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive
practices. By establishing transparent and reasonable fee structures, the government promotes consumer
rights and prevents exploitation of patients seeking fertility treatment. Government-issued guidelines
play a crucial role in ensuring the quality of IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) services. By setting standards
for professional fees, the government incentivizes healthcare providers to uphold high-quality standards
in their facilities, equipment, and personnel. These guidelines serve as a benchmark for healthcare
providers, encouraging them to invest in resources and infrastructure necessary to deliver safe and
effective reproductive medicine services.
Setting standards for professional fees helps mitigate the risk of cost-cutting measures that may
compromise the quality of care provided to patients. Healthcare providers are motivated to allocate
resources towards maintaining state-of-the-art equipment, employing qualified personnel, and
implementing best practices in IVF procedures to justify their fees and remain competitive in the market.
Furthermore, government-issued guidelines promote transparency and accountability within the IVF
industry. Patients can make informed decisions about their healthcare options when they have access to
clear information about the costs associated with IVF services. Standardized fee structures also reduce
the likelihood of overcharging or hidden costs, ensuring fairness and equity in access to fertility
treatments.
Pricing transparency is paramount in promoting ethical practices within the healthcare industry,
including in the context of IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) treatment. By providing clear guidelines on
professional fees for IVF services, healthcare providers can uphold ethical standards and ensure that
patients are empowered to make informed decisions about their care. Transparent pricing helps mitigate
conflicts of interest between healthcare providers and patients. When patients are aware of the costs
associated with IVF treatment upfront, they can make decisions based on medical necessity rather than
financial incentives. This transparency reduces the risk of unnecessary procedures or treatments being
recommended solely for financial gain. While there may not be specific case laws directly addressing
pricing transparency in IVF treatment, cases such as Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha
(1995) emphasize the importance of transparent pricing. Transparent pricing contributes to ensuring that
patients have the information they need to provide informed consent for medical procedures. When
patients have access to clear information about the costs of IVF treatment, they can weigh the financial
implications alongside medical considerations. This empowers patients to choose treatment options that
align with their preferences, values, and financial capabilities.
In Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Another (2008)9, the Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of transparent pricing that contributes to fulfilling these principles by ensuring that patients
have the necessary information to make decisions about their care.
The government's authority to provide guidelines on professional fees for IVF treatment is supported by
various legal provisions, including the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019. These laws empower the government to regulate medical practice and protect consumer
interests in healthcare transactions.

PRAYERS
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed before this Honorable Court that:
i. The Government, represented herein by the appropriate regulatory body, be directed to establish
comprehensive guidelines and regulations aimed at addressing and preventing malpractices in
the treatment of fertility, ensuring the protection and well-being of individuals seeking such
treatments.
ii. The Government, through its designated agency, be mandated to conduct regular inspections and
audits of fertility clinics and practitioners to enforce adherence to the established guidelines and
regulations, thereby promoting transparency, accountability, and ethical standards in the fertility
treatment industry.
iii. The Government, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders including medical professionals,
patient advocacy groups, and legal experts, be ordered to formulate a code of conduct for fertility
clinics and practitioners, outlining the rights and responsibilities of both providers and patients,
and establishing mechanisms for recourse in case of violations.
iv. The Government be directed to allocate sufficient resources and funding towards the
establishment of support mechanisms for individuals who have been adversely affected by
malpractices in fertility treatment, including but not limited to counseling services, legal
assistance, and access to alternative treatment options.
v. The Interveners, Mr.Sumit & Mrs.Sagarika, be awarded monetary compensation in the amount
of Rs. 1,800,000 (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs) as restitution for the losses suffered due to the
malpractices in fertility treatment, including emotional distress, medical expenses, and loss of
income, with applicable interest from the date of filing till realization.
vi. Any other relief, remedy, or order that this Honorable Court deems just and proper in the
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
This prayer seeks judicial intervention to address the malpractices in fertility treatment and to provide
compensation to the intervenor for the losses suffered, thereby promoting accountability and justice in
the realm of reproductive healthcare.

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner - Sparsh V Gov of Indices

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner - Sparsh V Gov of Indices

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8th S.N.D.

T NATIONAL LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2024

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF INDICES

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICES

SPRASH NGO ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………PETITIONER

GOVERNMENT OF INDICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………RESPONDANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 1

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 2

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

A.I.R. All Indices Reporter

S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

ART Assisted Reproductive Technology

ICMR Indian Council of Medical Research

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 3

1. Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)

3. Parmanand Kataria v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 2039[1]),

4. Gobind v. State of MP & ANR (1975 SCC (2) 148)

5. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582

6. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651

8. State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998)

10. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995)

11. Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Another (2008)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 4

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 5

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 6

1. WHETHER PIL IS MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER THE INTERVENTION APPLICATION FILED BY SAGARIKA IS MAINTAINABLE?

3. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICES HAS AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE IN MATTERS

4. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICES HAS AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 7

1. WHETHER PIL IS MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER THE INTERVENTION APPLICATION FILED BY SAGARIKA IS

3. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICES HAS AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE IN

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 8

4. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICES HAS AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 9

1. WHETHER PIL IS MAINTAINABLE?

1 The petitioner in the instant case

ETHICAL CONCERNS IN INDIA'S ART INDUSTRY

Inadequate Explanation: ART clinics fail to provide comprehensive information to couples

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 11

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 12

Impact on Fundamental Rights:

Article 21 - Protection of Life and Personal Liberty:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 13

Right to Informed Consent and Bodily Autonomy:

Right to Life and Personal Liberty:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 14

Privacy extends beyond mere physical boundaries to encompass personal autonomy,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 15

Impact on Legal Rights:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 16

2. WHETHER THE INTERVENTION APPLICATION MAINTAINABLE?

UNETICAL PRACTICE OF SNEHAL DIAGNOSTICS

Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582

Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 18

3. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICES HAS AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE IN MATTERS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 19