TEAM CODE: C 14- 22
COMMONWEALTH MOOT COURT COMPETITION , 2014
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT K OLKATA OLKATA
Tony Stanly!!!!!!!""!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"Cla#$ant %" D&" Sa'(#n Pa)a&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"1 *t D+nant An D&" D.yot# Sa&/a&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""2 n D+nant
MEMORIAL for CLAIMANT
Table of Contents
TALE O CONTENTS TALE TALE O CONTENTS""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" CONTENTS"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""II """""""""""""""""""""""""""II TALE TALE O AUTHORITIES""""""""""""""""" AUTHORITIES"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" STATEM STATEMENT ENT O 3URISDICTION"""""""""""""""""""""""" 3URISDICTION""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""II """""""""""""II STATEM STATEMENT ENT O ACTS"""""""""""""""""" ACTS""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""" III SUMMAR5 O PLEADIN6S"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" PLEADIN6S""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""I """""""""""""""I I"
THE K OLKATA OLKATA DISTRICT COURT HAS 3URISDICTION TO AD3UDICATE THIS
DISPUTE""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""" I PLEADIN6S""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" PLEADIN6S"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""1 1 I" THAT THE K OLKATA OLKATA DISTRICT COURT HAS 3URISDICTION TO AD3UDICATE THIS DISPUTE""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1 1
A. The Code of Civil Procedure Procedure allows the Jurisdiction of Kolkata Kolkata District Court...... ....1 ... .1 B. International Conventions and Principles reconi!e the Jurisdiction of Kolkata District Court.............................................. Court..................................................................... .............................................. ................................................1 .........................1 II" THAT THE DEENDANTS ARE COMPOSITEL5 NE6LI6ENT IN CARR5IN6 OUT THE TREATMENT O THE CLAIMANT7S WIE"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""8
A. Two Two or "ore Persons #ave #ave Carried out the Treat$ent............... Treat$ent................................................ ................................. % B. The Treat$ent Treat$ent has Been &elientl' Carried (ut........................... (ut........................................................ ............................. ) i. The defendants did not e*ercise e* ercise ordinaril' skill and care....................................... care....................................... ... 4 ii. The established and accepted nor$s of $edical practice have not been followed. . . 9 9 iii. The da$aes are a direct conse+uence of the act of the defendants...... defendants. ......... ......... ......... ....... ... 12 III" THE LIAILIT5 O THE DEENDANTS CAN7T E EEMPTED THROU6H THE PATIENT UNDERTAKIN6 CUM 6UIDELINE DOCUMENT""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""18
Table of Contents
TALE O CONTENTS TALE TALE O CONTENTS""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" CONTENTS"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""II """""""""""""""""""""""""""II TALE TALE O AUTHORITIES""""""""""""""""" AUTHORITIES"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" STATEM STATEMENT ENT O 3URISDICTION"""""""""""""""""""""""" 3URISDICTION""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""II """""""""""""II STATEM STATEMENT ENT O ACTS"""""""""""""""""" ACTS""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""" III SUMMAR5 O PLEADIN6S"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" PLEADIN6S""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""I """""""""""""""I I"
THE K OLKATA OLKATA DISTRICT COURT HAS 3URISDICTION TO AD3UDICATE THIS
DISPUTE""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""" I PLEADIN6S""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" PLEADIN6S"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""1 1 I" THAT THE K OLKATA OLKATA DISTRICT COURT HAS 3URISDICTION TO AD3UDICATE THIS DISPUTE""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1 1
A. The Code of Civil Procedure Procedure allows the Jurisdiction of Kolkata Kolkata District Court...... ....1 ... .1 B. International Conventions and Principles reconi!e the Jurisdiction of Kolkata District Court.............................................. Court..................................................................... .............................................. ................................................1 .........................1 II" THAT THE DEENDANTS ARE COMPOSITEL5 NE6LI6ENT IN CARR5IN6 OUT THE TREATMENT O THE CLAIMANT7S WIE"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""8
A. Two Two or "ore Persons #ave #ave Carried out the Treat$ent............... Treat$ent................................................ ................................. % B. The Treat$ent Treat$ent has Been &elientl' Carried (ut........................... (ut........................................................ ............................. ) i. The defendants did not e*ercise e* ercise ordinaril' skill and care....................................... care....................................... ... 4 ii. The established and accepted nor$s of $edical practice have not been followed. . . 9 9 iii. The da$aes are a direct conse+uence of the act of the defendants...... defendants. ......... ......... ......... ....... ... 12 III" THE LIAILIT5 O THE DEENDANTS CAN7T E EEMPTED THROU6H THE PATIENT UNDERTAKIN6 CUM 6UIDELINE DOCUMENT""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""18
Table of Contents A. There is a ,unda$ental ,unda$ental Breach Breach of a -tandard ,or$ Contract...................................1% Contract...................................1% B. The iabilit' in Tort Tort cannot cannot be /*e$pted b' a Contractual Clause........................... Clause........................... 1) C. The Patient 0ndertakin cu$ uideline Docu$ent is aainst the Public Polic'......12 D. The Provision Provision of 3 14 of the Indian Contract Contract Act is Attracted...................................14 Attracted.............................. .....14 I" THE LIAILIT5 O THE DEENDANTS WOULD NOT MITI6ATE AS THE CLAIMANT WAS WAS NOT NE6LI6ENT""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""19 """""""""""""""19
A. The Clai$ant had taken 5easonable Care for the -afet' of the Deceased.................16 B. The &elience7 even if Present7 was was not -ubstantial.................................................16 -ubstantial.................................................16 C. The Clai$ant took the -afest Course of Action in iht of the Danerous -ituation Caused B' The Defendants........................................ Defendants............................................................... ......................................................18 ...............................18 " THAT THERE CAN E NO AR ON THE CLAIMANT TO INITIATE A LE6AL PROCEEDIN6S IN UK""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" UK""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""21 21
A. Difference in the #eads of Da$aes in various Jurisdictions will ead to Different Causes of Action..................................... Action............................................................ .............................................. .......................................... ...........................91 ........91 i. Ascertainin Ascerta inin the heads of da$aes da$a es is a substantive substant ive issue iss ue.................. ......... ............... ............ .......... .......... ..... 22 ii. &on: reconition of an' head of da$ae leads of a separate cause of action. .... .. .... ....22 iii. &on: reconition of da$aes under the head of bereave$ent in Indian law $a' lead to a separate cause of action...................... action. ............................................ .............................................. ................................... ............ 23 iv. The Principle of clai$ preclusion is inapplicable......... inapplicable................. ................ ................ ................ ............. .......... ..... 23 B. Avoid Avoid an' Chances Chances of Dela' in rant of 5elief fro$ the the Indian Courts.....................9) I" THAT THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO SUE AND CLAIM DAMA6ES UNDER ARIOUS HEADS""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""2 ""2
A. /ntitle$ent to 5ecover Pecuniar' Da$aes.............................. Da$aes..................................................... .................................92 ..........92 i. oss of inco$e of the deceased leadin to loss of dependenc'.......... dependenc'. ................. .............. ........... ......... .... 26 ii. Costs in ter$s of e*penses incurred on various ite$s........................ ite$s. ..................................... ..................... ....... 27
Table of Contents B. /ntitle$ent to 5ecover &on: Pecuniar' Da$aes......................... Da$aes................................................ .............................9; ......9; i. Pain and -ufferin of the Deceased....................... Deceased. ............................................. ................................................... ............................ 27 ii. oss of Consortiu$..................... Consortiu$............................................ .............................................. ...................................................... ............................... 28 iii. "ental and /$otional Distress of the Clai$ant................................................. Clai$ant................................................. ... 28 28 C. /ntitle$ent to 5ecover Punitive Da$aes..................................................... Da$aes..................................................................98 .............98 PRA5ER""""""""""""""""" PRA5ER"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""80 ""80
Table of Authorities
TALE O AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act, 1982.............................................................................23 COD C!". #$OC. 19%8, &o. ' o( 19%8..................................................................................... .1 )atal Accidents Act 18'', &o.12 o( 18''..........................................................................2', 27 )atal Accidents Act, 1976............................................................................................... ...23, 28 !ndian Contracts Act 1872, &o. 9 o( 1872......................................................................... 1', 16 *egal $e+resentatives uits Act 18'', Act, &o.12 o( 18''.........................................2', 26, 27 #rivate !nternational *a- /iscellaneous #rovisions0 Act 199'.............................................21
INDIAN CASES
Aso umar #atil v. &e- !ndia Assurance Co., A.!.$. 2%%7 Del. 136................................16 As-ani umar /isra v. #. #./uniam5au, 1999 A.C.J. 11%'......................................2', 27 5.". &agarau v. Oriental !nsurance Co. *td, 19960 4 .C.C. 647................................... 13, 14 Cainatamano v. urendranat, !.*.$. 19'60 Cut. '87.............................................................4 Cinna++a $edd, J. /.". lisaet v. ar-an !nvestment : ;rading #vt. *td.,
1 .C.$. 1%%3.........................................................................................................................2 Com+an o( !ndia *td. v. 5irendra5aadur#ande, 1984 20 .C.C. 142.................................2 Devi&andan v.
Table of Authorities <ansmdas5ag-andasv. tate o( /ada #rades 1977 A.C.J. 182.................................7 <erulal v. /aadeodas/aia, A.!.$. 19'9 .C. 781.............................................................1' 1 .C.$. 1%%3.... ......2 /aoo an v. aim Adul $aim, A.!.$. 1964 $a. 2'%......................................... ......16 /ala umar
Table of Authorities $attan Cand ira Cand v. Asar &a-a Jung, 19910 3 .C.C. 67..................................... 1' iv !ndersen /ircandani o( 5oma and Anr. v. &atasa aris Advani and Ors., 2%%2 20 5om. C.$. 436........................................................................................................................2 ivra"asant5ag-at v. evanta D !ndular, 1997 A.C.J. 1%14..........................................14 mt. ata v. ri;ea ing, A.!.$. 197' .C. 1%'................................................................21 +ring /eado-s os+ital :Anoter v. arolAlu-alia:Anr.,19980 4 .C.C. 39................7 tate o( arana v. antra, A.!.$. 2%%% .C. 1888....................................................................' uaa v. "eraa 193'0 /.@.&. 1%43..................................................................................3 uumar /ueree and 5aidanatalder v. /ala umar
UK CASES
Ale?ander v. $ail-a ?ecutive, =19'1> 2 All .$. 442......................................................... 13 Australian Commercial $esearc and Develo+ment *td. v. A.&.F./cCaugan /ercant 5an *td., =1989> 3 All .$. 6'........................................................................................... 24 5eaumont;omas v. 5lue tar *ine *td., =1939> 3 All .$. 127............................................14 5ernett v. Celsea and ensington os+ital /anagement Committee, 19860 1 All .$. 1%86 ..............................................................................................................................................12 5lac v. Gates........................................................................................................................... 22
Table of Authorities 5olam v. )riern os+ital /anagement Committee...........................................................4, ', 9 5o Andre-s v. t. $oguvald, 19470 2 All .$..*.0 3'%........................................ ...........19 Ca+lin v. 5os, =1971> A.C. 3'6 .*.0...........................................................................21, 22 Cester v. A(sar 2%%20 3 All .$. ''2............................................................................... .....' dmunds v. immonds =2%%1> 1 @.*.$. 1%%3.........................................................................22 <. . $enton, *td. v. #almra ;rading Cor+oration o( #anama, =19'7> A.C..*.0 149........14 amln : Co v.;aliser Distiller, 18940 21 $ .*.021......................................................21 arding v. @ealands, =2%%6> * 32...................................................................................22 ume v. Oldare, 171 .$. 494................................................................................................. 3 #etrie v. *amont, 18420 C. /ars. 93.......................................................................................4 $oinson v. ;e #ost O((ice, 19740 2 All .$. 737................................................................12 #ars v. d-ard As *td., 19430 1 .5. 223......................................................................18 ida-a v. 5oard o( A.C. .*.0 871.........................................................................................................17 later v. 5aer, 9' .$. 86%.......................................................................................................4 -adling v. Coo+er, 19310 A.C. .*.0 1............................................................................... 18 ;ae v. /aurice 19860 1 All .$. 497....................................................................................' ;om+son v. *ondon Count Council, 18990 1 H.5. 84%........................................................3 @ite v. Jon @ar-ic : Co *td, =19'3> 2 All $ 1%21....................................................... 14 @iteouse v. Jordan, 19810 1 All .$. 267.............................................................................9
OTHER CASES
5ennett v.Coatridge ealt Centre, =2%11> C..O.. 9 cot.0.................................... .........1% 5isso v. !nland @ater-as Cor+oration, 349 .. 8' 19''0..................................................1' Cali(ornia #o-der @ors v. Atlantic :#aci(ic $.$. Co., 113 Ca. 329, 336, 4' #ac.... ...........1'
Table of Authorities Ca+lin v. a-es, 18280 3 C. : #. ''4.................................................................................. 19 )o? v. ealt &et, $iverside u+ Ct Case &o. 219692 19930................................................1% uer v. teiner, 183'0 2 5ing. &.C. 2%2...............................................................................21 !n $e )uldIs state &o. 30,=1966> 2 @.*.$. 717................................................................ ....21 Jacson v #o-er 743 #.2d 1376 Alasa 19870........................................................................9 arsales arro-0 *td. v. @allis, =19'6> 1 @.*.$. 936...........................................................14 ul v. *incoln &atBl ealt #lan o( ansas Cit, !nc., 999 ). 2d 298 8t Cir. 19930...........1% *andgra( v. ! )ilm #rods, '11 .. 244 19940...................................................................29 *an+ier v. #i+os, 18380 8 C. : #. 47'..................................................................................4 /ostn v. )arigas, 1 Co-+. 161............................................................................................ 22 #a++as v. Asel, 67' A.2d 711, 713 #a. 19960....................................................................... 1% meatonanscome v. assoon !.ett, 19'30 1 @.*.$. 1468...............................................14 mit v. ;e *ondon and .@. $ail-a Com+an, 187%E710 *.$. 6 C.#. 14........................ 12 +urling *td. v. 5radsa-, =19'6> 1 @.*.$. 461.....................................................................13 @aterouse v. Australian 5roadcasting Cor+., 19890 86 A.C.;.$. 1 Australia0...................22 @elc v. +stein '36 .. 2d 4%8 2%%%0........................................................................ ........29 @illiams v. ealt America 41 Oio A++. 3d 24' 19870.........................................................9 @ood v. ;urston, 19'3 C.*.C. 6871........................................................................................'
ARTICLE-
Alan D.@idgero-, To*ic epider$al necrol'sis $anae$ent issues and treat$ent options , 1! &;. J. 5$&A&D ;$A/A42, 47 2%110..........................................................................12 Cris+iancull : Jose 5agan, (ral $ucosal diseases< er'the$a $ultifor$e, 46 20 5$ J O$A* /A!**O)AC$< 9%, 94 2%%80................................................................................ 8
Table of Authorities <.
e*perience
and
outco$e,
$O#A&
$ "!@
)O$
/D!CA*
A&D
#A$/ACO*O
epider$al
&ecrol'sis,
2%
JO$&A*
O)
#A!;A& AOC!A;!O&
O)
D$/A;O*O
86 2%130.....................................................................................6
$oert A. eligson, Contractual /*e$ption for liabilit' fro$ nelience , 44 10 CA*!)O$&!A *A@ $ "!@121, 128 19'60.............................................................................................. 14
Table of Authorities andi+an Dar, -'ste$atic corticosteroids in to*ic epider$al necrolsis, 62 40 ! &D. J. D$/A;O*O-ubstance? and >Procedure? in the Conflict of aws7 42 GA* *.J. 333, 334 19330...................................................................................................................................21
OOKS-
A && *, AD"$ D$< $ AC;!O& 14% 2%%'0.............................................................', 6 D!CG; A*., ; CO&)*!C; O) *A@ 177 *a-rence Collins ed.,14 t ed. 2%%%0...........21, 23 <.C C!$ ; A*., C!$ A&D &O$;I #$!"A; ! &;!;;!O&A* *A@ 67E8 James )ac-ett ed., 13t ed. 19990................................................................................................. ..21 *O@** A.
-tate$ent of Jurisdiction
STATEMENT O 3URISDICTION
;e claimant as sumitted tis dis+ute to tis onIle Court, invoing its urisdiction under P 9 read -it P 19 o( te Code o( Civil #rocedure 19%8, read -it P 1, *egal $e+resentatives uits Act 18'' and P 1A )atal Accidents Act, 18'', -ic, inter alia, con(ers u+on tis Court te +o-er to tr all civil suits, te value o( -ic satis(ies te +ecuniar urisdiction o( tis Court. ;e +lainti(( uml sumits to te urisdiction o( tis onIle Court and sall acce+t an udgment o( tis Court as (inal and inding and sall e?ecute tem in its entiret and in good (ait.
-tate$ent of ,acts
STATEMENT O ACTS
I" PARTIES TO THE PETITION
;e a++ellants in tis case are /r. ;on tanle -o is ased in and ad come to !ndia on a olida. ;e collective res+ondents in tis case are Dr. acin #a-ar and Dr. Deoti arar, medical +ractitioners ased in olata.
II" SE;UENCE O EENTS
/r. ;on tanle and is -i(e aron tanle, a ased cou+le came to !ndia in )eruar 2%14 (or a +eriod o( one mont. ;erea(ter, /rs. aron tanle egan contracting acute +ain, (ever and rases.
Initial treat$ent iven to "rs. -haron -tanle' b' Dr -achin Pawar /r. ;on tanle and is -i(e aron tanle otained te services o( Dr. acin #a-ar, a doctor at
-tate$ent of ,acts Treat$ent iven to "rs -haron -tanle' at @asantech @en aron tanleIs ealt so-ed no im+rovement, se -as admitted to a os+ital, namel "asantec os+ital, on 11t )eruar. ;e os+ital as een earlier sut do-n on account o( negligence tat caused a (ire illing 93 +eo+le tat included mostl +atients and nurses.
aron tanle and ;on tanle -ere made to sign a document called Q#atient ndertaing and
!n lieu o( te Q#atient ndertaing cum
Treat$ent b' Dr. Deb'oti -arkar and subse+uent death of "rs. -haron -tanle'. Dr. Deoti arar diagnosed aronIs condition as ;o?ic +idermal &ecrolsis ereina(ter ;&0 ut did not mae an drastic cange in treatment alread eing given. ;& is a rare
-tate$ent of ,acts disease caused reaction to drugs -ic leads to detacment o( u++er laer o( sin (rom te lo-er, all over te od. @en no im+rovement -as a++arent, se -as taen to Q5!!/ ealtI os+ital in
-uit b' "r. Ton' -tanle' aainst Dr. -achin Pawar and Dr. Deb'oti -arkar /r. ;on tanle as sued Dr. acin #a-ar and Dr. Deoti arar collectivel Qres+ondentsI0 (or contriutor medical negligence in te District Court, olata, !ndia. e (urter intends to sue te res+ondents e(ore Count Court, 5irmingam, as -ell. ;e $es+ondents as re(uted te claims made te claimant and state tat, te ad ado+ted te reuisite standard o( care in andling te +atient and administration o( te treatment in terms o( te Q#atient ndertaing cum
Hn' t( <&*nt *=#t"
-u$$ar' of Pleadins
SUMMAR5 O PLEADIN6S
I" THE K OLKATA DISTRICT COURT HAS 3URISDICTION TO AD3UDICATE THIS DISPUTE"
District Court in olata as te autorit to adudicate tis civil dis+ute. ;o estalis tis, te claimant as sumitted a t-oE(old argumentN >A? ;at te Code o( Civil #rocedure 19%8 +rovides (or te urisdiction o( te olata District Court, and >? tat te !nternational Conventions and #rinci+les recognie te urisdiction o( te olata District Court.
II" THE DEENDANTS ARE COMPOSITEL5 NE6LI6ENT IN CARR5IN6 OUT THE TREATMENT O THE CLAIMANT7S WIE"
;e de(endants are com+ositel negligent in carring out te treatment o( te claimantIs -i(e. ;o estalis tis, te claimant as sumitted a t-oE(old argumentN >A? ;at t-o or more +ersons ave carried out te treatment, as te 1 st de(endant -as involved in carring out te initial treatment and te 2nd de(endant continued te treatment e(ore te claimantIs -i(e -as si(ted (rom olata to ? tat te treatment -as negligentl carried out as te de(endants did not e?ercise ordinar sill and care and (ollo- te estalised and acce+ted norms o( medical +ractice. /oreover, te damages -ere a direct conseuence o( te act o( te de(endants.
III"THE LIAILIT5 O THE DEENDANTS CANNOT E EEMPTED THROU6H THE PATIENT UNDERTAKIN6 CUM 6UIDELINE DOCUMENT"
-u$$ar' of Pleadins ;e #atient ndertaing cum A? ;at tere is a (undamental reac o( a tandard )orm Contract as it e?em+ts te doctors (rom te core oligation o( sa(e and medicall recognied treatment to te +atients, >? tat te liailit in tort cannot e e?em+ted a contractual clause and te dut o( care to te +atient arises out o( tort la- and not a contractual sti+ulation, >C0 tat te #atient ndertaing cum Document is against te +ulic +olic as it entails te (eatures o( an unconscionale contract, and >D? tat te +rovisions o( section 16 o( te !ndian Contract Act is a++licale as te e?em+tion clause is clearl smolic o( an un(air advantage tat te doctors and sta(( o( "asantec os+ital ad over te +atients.
I" THE LIAILIT5 O THE DEENDANTS WOULD NOT MITI6ATE AS THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT NE6LI6ENT"
;ere is asence o( contriutor negligence on +art o( te de(endants. ;o estalis tis, te claimant as sumitted a treeE(old argumentN >A? ;at te claimant did not (ail to tae reasonale care o( te sa(et o( te deceased as te movement o( te +lainti(( (rom olata to ? tat in aruendo, even i( tere -as negligence, it -as not sustantial as te disease o( te -i(e o( te claimant as alread aggravated e(ore te claimantIs -i(e -as moved (rom olata to Deli, and >C? tat te +lainti(( too te sa(est course o( action in ligt o( te dangerous situation created te de(endants as te sa(est course o( action -as to move te claimantIs -i(e to anoter medical (acilit so tat er ailment could e cured.
" THAT THERE IS NO AR ON THE CLAIMANT TO INITIATE LE6AL PROCEEDIN6S IN UK"
-u$$ar' of Pleadins ;e claimant is entitled to sue te de(endants in te 5irmingam Count Court. ;o estalis tis, te claimant sumits a t-oE(old argumentN >A? ;at recovering damages on tose eads -ic are not allo-ed te !ndian sustantive la-, ut are allo-ed te la- -ould lead to a di((erent cause o( action, and >? ;e claimant can initiate legal +roceedings in te to avoid an cances o( dela in granting o( relie( (rom te !ndian Courts.
I"THAT THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO SUE AND CLAIM DAMA6ES UNDER ARIOUS HEADS"
;e claimant is entitled to sue and claim damages under various eads. ;o estalis tis, te claimant sumits a treeE(old argumentN >A? ;at te claimant is entitled to recover +ecuniar damages, >? tat te com+lainant is entitled to recover nonE+ecuniar damages, and >C? te claimant is entitled to recover +unitive damages.
Pleadins
PLEADIN6S
I" THAT THE K OLKATA DISTRICT COURT HAS 3URISDICTION TO AD3UDICATE THIS DISPUTE"
1. !t is sumitted tat te District Court in olata as te autorit to adudicate tis civil dis+ute ecause @A te Code o( Civil #rocedure 19%8 +rovides (or te urisdiction o( te olata District Court, and @ te !nternational Conventions and #rinci+les recognie te Jurisdiction o( te olata District Court. A" THE C ODE O C IIL PROCEDURE ALLOWS THE 3 URISDICTION O K OLKATA DISTRICT COURT"
2. ;e Code o( Civil #rocedure mandates tat a suit (or com+ensation (or -rong done to a +erson ma e instituted in te Court in -ose local limits te -rong as taen +lace. 1 !t also allo-s an o+tion to a +art to sue at te Court in -ose territorialit te de(endant resides or -ors (or +ersonal gain. 2 3. !n te +resent case, te alleged -rong o( negligentl treating te claimantIs -i(e as een committed in te territor o( olata and moreover, te de(endants reside and -or (or +ro(essional gain at tis territor onl.3
1 COD C!". #$OC. 19%8, &o. ' o( 19%8, P 19. ! &D!A COD0 2 Id . 3 /oot Court #rolem, 2, 6.
Pleadins " INTERNATIONAL CONENTIONS AND PRINCIPLES RECO6NIBE THE 3URISDICTION O K OLKATA DISTRICT COURT"
4. !t is a settled la- tat te national Courts -ill endorse rules o( !nternational la-, +rovided te do not con(lict -it national la-s, 4 so muc so tat even i( !ndia is not a signator to a convention, still te Courts can rel on tese international conventions. ' '. ;ere(ore, te Court can rel on te &!D$O!; #rinci+les o( ;ransnational Civil #rocedure tat +rovide tat te Court can e?ercise urisdiction over a +art -en tere is a substantial connection et-een te (orum state and te +art or te transaction or occurrence in dis+ute.6A sustantial connection is said to e?ist -en a signi(icant +art o( te transaction or occurrence as occurred in te (orum state.7 6. imilar reliance can e +laced on te ague Convention on te $ecognition and n(orcement o( )oreign Judgments, 8 -ic also considers te urisdiction o( te Court in -ose urisdiction te (acts, -ic occasioned te damage occurred. 7. !n te +resent case, olata is te +lace -it sustantial connection to te occurrence in dis+ute and is te +lace -ere te alleged damage as occurred. ;ere(ore, it is sumitted tat te +resent Court as urisdiction to adudicate on tis matter.
4 1 .C.$. 1%%3"isaa v. tate o( $aastan, A.!.$. 1997 .C. 3%11. 'iv !ndersen /ircandani o( 5oma and Anr. v. &atasa aris Advani and Ors., 2%%2 20 5om. C.$. 436. citing -ee ra$ophone Co$pan' of India td. , 1984 20 .C.C. 142 -ee ".@. /lisabeth , =1992> 1 .C.$. 1%%3 -ee @ishakha , A.!.$. 1997 .C. 3%11 /.". /ariner !" v. "..&.*.,1998 '0 5om. C.$. 312.0 6 &!D$O!; #$!&C!#* O) ;$A&&A;!O&A* C!"!* #$OCD$, art. 2.1.2 2%%40 =ereina(ter Q&!D$O!;I>. 7 Id.
8A< CO&"&;!O&
$ CO<&!;!O& A&D &)O$C/&; O) )O$!<& JD
Pleadins
II" THAT THE DEENDANTS ARE COMPOSITEL5 NE6LI6ENT IN CARR5IN6 OUT THE TREATMENT O THE CLAIMANT7S WIE"
8. !t is sumitted tat te de(endants are com+ositel negligent (or carring out te treatment o( claimantIs -i(e as, @A t-o or more +ersons ave carried out te treatment and @ te treatment as een negligentl carried out. A" TWO OR MORE PERSONS HAE CARRIED OUT THE TREATMENT"
9. Com+osite negligence re(ers to te negligence on +art o( t-o or more +ersons. 9 ;us, te +erson needs to e inured as a result o( te negligence on +art o( t-o or more -rongdoers.1% All +ersons -o aid, or counsel, or direct or oin in te committal o( a -rong(ul act, i.e. negligence -ould e +art to te com+osite negligence. 11 1%. @en +ersons, not acting in concert, teir -rong(ul acts, commit sustantiall contem+oraneousl, cause damage to anoter +erson, te attract te liailit o( several tortE(easors.12 /oreover, te tortE(easors cannot insist on aving oters oined as de(endants.13 ;e mere omission to sue some -ill not disentitle te +lainti(( (rom claiming (ull relie( against tose -o are sued.14 11. !t is sumitted tat in te +resent case, ot te de(endants -ere involved in carring out te treatment o( te claimantIs -i(e. @ile te 1 st de(endant -as involved in carring out te initial treatment, te 2nd de(endant continued te treatment e(ore te claimantIs -i(e -as si(ted (rom olata to a
9 ;.O. Anton v. arvarnan, 2%%80 3 .C.C. 748. 1% Id. 11 ;om+son v. *ondon Count Council, 18990 1 H.5. 84%. 12 ume v. Oldare, 171 .$. 494. 13 uaa v. "eraa 193'0 /.@.&. 1%43. 14 Id.
Pleadins " THE TREATMENT HAS EEN NE6LI6ENTL5 CARRIED OUT"
12. An inur accruing 1' to a +art as a result o( te -rong(ul act o( t-o or more tortE(easors (orms te essential and intrinsic +art o( com+osite negligence.16 ;us te causation o( an inur as a result o( te negligence (orms te essential com+onent o( com+osite negligence.17 113. !t is sumitted tat te inur caused to te claimantIs -i(e and claimant -as due to te negligence o( te de(endants in te treatment o( claimantIs -i(e, -ic can e adudged (rom te (acts o( te case tatN ordinar sills and care -ere not e?ercised >#? estalised and acce+ted norms o( te medical +ro(ession -ere not (ollo-ed >##?and te suseuent damages caused are a direct conseuence o( te act o( te de(endants and -ere not remote>###?. i. The defendants did not exercise ordinarily skill and care.
14. ;e case o( 5olam v. )riern os+ital /anagement Committee 18 ad clearl estalised te (act tat te test (or medical +ro(essionals is te test o( an ordinar silled man e?ercising and +ro(essing to ave tat ordinar sill. 1'. A doctor needs to ensure reasonale degree o( care and caution -ile carring out te treatment o( a +atient.19 /oreover, te treatment o( a doctor as to e udged in ligt o( te circumstances o( te eac case.2% !t is incument u+on te medical +ro(essional to ring a (air, reasonale and com+etent degree o( sill -ile carring out a medical treatment. 21
1' Cainatamano v. urendranat, !.*.$. 19'60 Cut. '87. 16 #etrie v. *amont, 18420 C. /ars. 93 ng.0 17 -ee T.(. Anthon' , 2%%80 3 .C.C. 748 #uamma v. <. $aendra &aidu, A.!.$. 1988 /ad. 1%9. 18 19'70 2 All .$. 118. 19 Jaco /ate- v. tate o( #una, 2%%'0 6 .C.C. 1. 2% Dr. *a?man v. Dr. ;rima, A.!.$. 1969 .C. 128. 21 *an+ier v. #i+os, 18380 8 C. : #. 47' later v. 5aer, 9' .$. 86%.
Pleadins 16. !t is sumitted tat te de(endants did not e?ercise ordinar care and sills as im+ro+er diagnosis ad een carried out te 1 st de(endant >#-a? and te medication +rescried te de(endants -as not in consonance -it estalised medical +ractice >#-?. >#-a? T( #ano*#* <&+o&$ y t( 1 *t +nant )a* &o**ly an latantly aa#n*t t( +=na$ntal* o+ $#'al *'#n'*"
17. !t is sumitted tat a doctor, -en consulted te +atient, o-es te +atient certain duties and a dut o( care in deciding -at treatment to give is one o( tem. 22 !t is te dut o( a medical +ro(essional to e?amine a +atient closel and accuratel diagnose te ailment o( te +atient.23A doctor -ould e eld liale (or not a++ling -it reasonale com+etence te medical sills o( -ic eMse is +ossessed.24 18. ;e diagnosis sould a++ear reasonale in ligt o( te circumstances o( te case.2' /oreover, te inerent riss associated -it ever treatment needs to e e+t in mind at te time o( diagnosis.26 19. ;e claimantIs -i(e ad com+lained o( acute (ever, rases and +ain -en se a++roaced te 1st de(endant (or treatment.27 2%. !nitial sm+toms o( ;o?ic +idermal &ecrolsis ;&0 include +ain and (ever along -it stinging ees.28 ;e +atient migt also e?+erience cest +ain, oint +ain, nausea and vomiting.29 ;e +rodrome t+icall lasts (rom 1 da to 3 -ees. 3% ;e acute +ase
22 #oonam "erma v. As-in #atel, A.!.$.1996 .C.2111 tate o( arana v. antra, A.!.$. 2%%% .C. 1888. 23 @ood v. ;urston, 19'3 C.*.C. 6871 cited in ". isan $ao v. &iil u+er +ecialt os+ital, 2%1% '0 .C.$. 10. 24 -ee Bola$ , 19'70 2 All .$. 118.
2' Cester v. A(sar, 2%%20 3 All .$. ''2. 26 ;ae v. /aurice, 19860 1 All .$. 497. 27 /oot Court #rolem, 1. 28 ;omas arr : *ars )renc, To*ic /pider$al &ecrol'sis and -tevens:Johnson -'ndro$e , ' O$#A&; JO$&A* O) $ A$ D!A 1, 2 2%1%0. 29A && *, AD"$ D$< $ AC;!O& 14% 2%%'0. 3%To*ic /pider$al &ecrol'sis , Oct 1%, 2%14, 9N3% #/0, ---.emedicine.medsca+e.comMarticleM229698E overvie-.
Pleadins o-ever consists o( +ersistent (ever and urning and +ain(ul sin ras. 31 @en te ras a++ears, it ma e over large and varied +arts o( te od and it is usuall -arm and a++ears red.32 An analsis o( te sin io+s -ould so- t+ical (ull ticness e+idermal necrolsis due to eratinocte a+o+tosis. 33 ;is clearl di((erentiates it (rom an oter (orm o( sin disease, es+eciall allergic vasculitis. A++arent indications suc as tese tat +oint to-ards a +articular ailment need to e taen note o( and analsed in de+t.34 21. As (or an oter organ, diagnosis o( sin disease involves istor, e?amination and additional tests, i( reuired. ;e diagnosis does not ust involve taing a Quic looI at te +atient.3' ;e sin reactions needs to e analsed closel as te render instant diagnosis in certain cases or atleast a Qdiagnotic laelI -ic could e attriuted to a certain disease de+ending on te visual signs. 36 22. !t is sumitted tat te 1 st de(endant did not e?amine te claimantIs -i(e closel and accuratel and tus, reaced te dut o( care to diagnose te +atient correctl. ;e incorrect diagnosis o( allergic vascultis ad led to te uge deterioration in te ealt o( te +atient and tus, te 1 st de(endant is liale (or negligent diagnosis. >#-? T( $#'at#on <&*'&# y t( +nant* )a* not #n 'on*onan' )#t( t( *tal#*( $#'al <&a't#'"
23. !t is sumitted tat te administration o( an medication needs to e done in accordance -it te estalised medical +rinci+les.37!( te medical +ro(essional is ignorant o( te science o( medicine -ile +rescriing te medication and its dosage, ten a pri$a facie
31 #rasant ;i-ari et al., To*ic epider$al necrol'sis< an update , 3 20 A!A& #AC!)!C J O$&A* O) ; $O#!CA* D!A 8', 86 2%130. 32 Id.
33 ;omas arr : *ars )renc, supra note 28. 34 Coale v. Dr. $osie, 2%140 .@..C. 129%. 3' &.. Co? : !.. Coulson, Dianosis of skin diseases , in te 1 $ OOI ; ;5OO O) D $/A;O*O
Pleadins case o( negligence uilds u+on te doctor .38 sing or +rescriing a -rong drug or inection, -ic +roves to e detrimental (or te +atient, -ould ring te doctor -itin te amit o( medical liailit.39 24. ;e claimantIs -i(e -as administered 8% mg o( De+omedrol straigt-a and +rescried t-o inections dail (or tree das (rom 7 t )e., -ile te ma?imum recommended dosage o( te drug is -itin te range o( 4%E12% mg, and tat too at a minimum interval o( 1E2 -ees et-een suc doses. 4% 2'. De+omedrol metl+rednisolone0 is an antiEin(lammator steroid. 41 Corticosteroids are douleEedged -ea+ons, inso(ar as te can ave ene(icial as -ell as uge unto-ard e((ects suc as immunosu++ression. 42 As +er Jean douard $evo and Jean Claude $ou, -ose e?+ertise is acce+ted -orld over, corticosteroids are more dangerous tan use(ul in disorders suc as ;& as te increase te ris o( deat (rom in(ections. 43 /oreover, te dosage sould onl e (rom 8%E12% mg +er da and sould e ta+ered uicl and cautiousl so as to avoid an unto-ard incident. 44 26. #rednisolone is a corticosteroid tat as antiEin(lammator and mineralocorticoid +ro+erties.4' ;e steroidal ualities o( +rednisolone mae it as un(it (or te treatment o( ;& as De+omedrol. 46 ;e +eo+le -o receive corticosteroid are generall at a -orse o((
38 Dr. usaldas #ammandas v. tate o( /ada #rades, A.!.$. 196% /.#. '% /inor /arges . #ari v. Dr. /aur . /eta, A.!.$. 2%11 .C. 249. 39 +ring /eado-s os+ital : Anoter v. arol Alu-alia : Anr.,19980 4 .C.C. 39, $am &ivas v. tate o( ttar #rades, 1968 Cri.*.J.63' <ansmdas 5ag-andas v. tate o( /ada #rades 1977 A.C.J. 182. 4% /oot Court #rolem, 2, 3. 41 De+omedrol Dataseet, Oct ', 2%14, 8 A/0, ---.medsa(e.govt.nM+ro(sMdataseetMdMde+omedolin.+d(. 42 /ala umar
Pleadins +osition tan tose -o do not use suc steroids (or te +ur+ose (or ;&. 47 ;e +atients using suc steroids are +rone to more com+lications and a longer os+ital sta. 48 27. teroid used to e te standard treatment (or ;& till te 199%s. o-ever, te use o( tese steroids as ecome increasingl dis+utale in ligt o( te arm(ul e((ects tat arise out o( tem. 49 stematic steroids ave ecome increasingl dangerous (or treatment o( ;& o-ing to te increased cances o( mortalit.'% ence te use o( antiiotics, anticonvulsants and nonEsteroidal in(lammator drugs as ecome +re(erale no-.'1 28. ven i( steroids are to e given, te are to e onl given at te earl stages o( te disease along -it +ro+er dosage. '2 ig dosage at te earl stages can ene(it te +atient i( it is -itdra-n at te a++ro+riate time. '3 Continuing o( te use o( steroids, o-ever, could e uite detrimental (or te +atient.'4 29. ;e ris o( +neuomonia and se+ticemia also gets igl increased corticosteroids. '' ;e ma even get mased and ma reac an advanced stage e(ore eing recognied. '6 3%. ;ere(ore, it is sumitted tat te administration o( de+omedrol in suc ig dosages te 1st de(endant -as a grossl negligent act -en considered in ligt o( te aove (acts. )urtermore, te claimantIs -i(e -as under te care o( te 1 st de(endant till it -as trans(erred to te 2 nd de(endant.'7!t is sumitted tat te conduct o( te 1 st de(endant, -ile 47 Jean $evuet et al., Treat$ent of to*ic epider$al necrol'sis< Creteil=s e*perience , 123 90 A$C. D$/A;O*O
'7 /oot Court #rolem, 6.
Pleadins in "asantec, -as regulated te Q#atient ndertaing Cum
32. A medical +ro(essional needs to act in accordance -it te standards o( a reasonal com+etent medical man at all +oints in time. 61 ;ere are certain acce+ted standards and te act o( te medical +ro(essional sould e in consonance -it suc standards 62. 33. !t is sumitted tat te de(endants did not act as +er te acce+ted norms o( medical +ractice as te claimantIs -i(e -as not re(erred to a s+ecialist at te outset o( te treatment >##-a?, and no su++ortive care -as +rovided during te course o( te treatment >##-?. >##-a? R+&&al )a* not $a to a *<'#al#*t at t( o=t*t o+ t( t&at$nt"
34. !t is sumitted tat asence o( a timel re(erral to a s+ecialist -ould constitute negligence on +art o( te medical +ro(essional. 63 ;e (ailure to send a +atient to a s+ecialist, -en te situation mandates, -ould e a reac o( dut on +art o( te doctor and could lead to uge aggravation in te condition o( te +atient. 64 ;us, te +sician sould not tae te '8 Id., '. '9 Id., 6. 6% Id., 7. 61 -ee Bola$ , 19'70 1 @.*.$. '82. 62 @iteouse v. Jordan, 19810 1 All .$. 267. 63 @illiams v. ealt America 41 Oio A++. 3d 24' 19870 Jacson v #o-er 743 #.2d 1376 Alasa 19870. 64 ul v. *incoln &atBl ealt #lan o( ansas Cit, !nc., 999 ). 2d 298 8t Cir. 19930.
Pleadins +atient on an e?+erimental asis and an analsis -it res+ect to te re(erence needs to e made uicl.6' 3'. +ecialists concentrate on s+eci(ic t+es o( illnesses and +rolems tat a((ect s+eci(ic tissues and organ sstems in our od. 66 Dermatologists are te onl e?+erienced, trained and accredited s+ecialists in te diagnosis and management o( diseases o( te sin, air and nails in adults and cildren. 67 ;ere are no oters -o can +rovide care o( an eual ualit to tat o( dermatologists,68 in terms o( diagnosing and treating sin lesions. 69 36. nless te general +ractitioner as ad s+ecial training in dermatolog e sould not assume res+onsiilit (or te treatment o( suc conditions. 7% /oreover, a timel re(erral needs to e made to te s+ecialist. 71 ;e decision to mae a re(erral de+ends on te analsis o( o- a reasonale general +ractitioner -ould ave acted in determining -eter te +erson sould ave een re(erred or not.72 37. !t is sumitted tat te claimantIs -i(e -as not re(erred to a s+ecialist at te onset o( te disease in s+ite o( te a++arent +resence o( severe sm+toms o( a sin disease. /oreover, er care -as anded over to te 1st de(endant on te 12 t )e., -en er condition ad deteriorated to a large e?tent. ;ere(ore, te 1 st de(endant -as negligent due to delaed and untimel re(erral.
6' )o? v. ealt &et, $iverside u+. Ct. Case &o. 219692 19930. 66 The 5oad to Beco$in a Doctor , Oct 6, 2%14, 9N2% A/0, tt+NMM---.aamc.orgMdo-nloadM688%6MdataMroadE doctor.+d(. Collee of Ph'sicians< Der$atolo' , 67 5o'al Oct 23, 2%14, 6 #/0, tt+sNMM---.rc+london.ac.uMsites.de(aultM(ilesMdermatolog.+d(. 68 Id. 69 *uigi &aldi, The field and its boundaries , in te "!D&C 5 AD D$/A;O*O
72 5ennett v. Coatridge ealt Centre, =2%11> C..O.. 9 cot.0 #a++as v. Asel, 67' A.2d 711, 713 #a. 19960.
Pleadins >##-? T(& )a* no *=<
38. u++ortive care ecomes igl im+ortant in cases o( ;&. uge amount o( attention needs to e +aid to igEcalorie and igE+rotein diet.73 m+onatic ;reatment and antiacterial +olic are oter as+ects o( su++ortive treatment tat need to e adered to.74 everal litres o( (luid +er da are needed since (luid loss is enormous in severe cases. ;e asence o( sustitution o( tese (luids leads to im+ortant internal +rolems. 7' 39. Arti(icial ventiliation also needs to e +rovided in certain cases.76 Conunctivital involvement also ecomes a maor +rolem. ;us ee care also constituted an im+ortant element o( te su++ortive care. 77 se o( airE (luidied eds, use o( sstemic antiiotic tera+ (or s+eci(ic in(ections ut not (or +ro+la?is, to+ical antiiotic tera+ is not used, meticulous -ound care and moist saline gauge dressing are a++lied once dail -en most o( te involved e+idermal sur(ace as slouged o(( etc. are some o( te oter measures tat need to e taen. 78 ;us, su++ortive case ecomes an essential +art o( te tera+eutic a++roac (or te +revention o( ;&.79 4%. !t is sumitted tat tere -as asence o( an ind o( su++ortive tera+ during te course o( treatment. @ile te 1st de(endantIs -rong diagnosis initiated a totall di((erent course o( treatment and su++ortive care could not e +rovided at tat time, te 2 nd de(endant even a(ter rigtl diagnosing te claimantIs -i(e o( ;& -as +atentl negligent in not +roviding te su++ortive care, -ic is te mainsta in treatment o( ;&.
73 2 *O@** A.
Pleadins iii. The damages are a direct consequence of the act of the defendants.
41. !t is sumitted tat (or a tortious claim, te damage cause needs to e a direct result o( te act o( te de(endants.8% ;e negligence o( te medical +ro(essionals needs to e te cause o( te damage tat as accrued to te +atient. 81;e Qut (orI test ecomes im+ortant in tis regard, since it is to e analsed tat -eter te damage -ould ave accrued Qut (orI te negligence o( te de(endant.82 42. ;e de(endants -ould in an casee liale, i( teir -rong(ul act as resulted in materiall contriuting to te damage. 83 ;e (act tat oter (actors -ere also +resent -ould not discarge te de(endants o( teir liailit.84 ;e damages sould, o-ever, e suc tat a reasonale man could ave (oreseen tem. 8' 43. ;& is a serious adverse sin reaction tat can e li(e treatening.86 Com+lications suc as se+sis can lead to te mortalit o( te +atient in ;&. ;us, in te +resent case te damage accruing to te claimantIs -i(e -as reasonal (oreseeale. /oreover, te disease could ave een diagnosed, treated and cured at an earlier stage, -ic -as Qut (orI te negligence o( te de(endants, could not e done. ;us, te deat o( te claimantIs -i(e is a direct conseuence o( te acts and omissions o( te de(endants.
8% $ A;A&*A* A&D D!$AJ*A*, ; *A@ O) ;O$; 184 <.#. ing eds., 26t ed. 2%130. 81 5ernett v. Celsea and ensington os+ital /anagement Committee, 19860 1 All .$. 1%86. 82 $oinson v. ;e #ost O((ice, 19740 2 All .$. 737. 83 $ A;A&*A* A&D D!$AJ*A*, supra note8%, at 18'. 84 Id. 8' mit v. ;e *ondon and .@. $ail-a Com+an, 187%E710 *.$. 6 C.#. 14. 86 Alan D. @idgero-, To*ic epider$al necrol'sis $anae$ent issues and treat$ent options , 1! &;. J. 5$&A&D ;$A/A42, 47 2%110.
Pleadins
III" THE LIAILIT5 O THE DEENDANTS CAN7T E EEMPTED THROU6H THE PATIENT UNDERTAKIN6 CUM 6UIDELINE DOCUMENT"
44. !t is sumitted tat te #atient ndertaing cum
against +ulic +olic, and @D it attracts te +rovisions o( P16 o( te !ndian Contracts Act, 1872. A" THERE IS A UNDAMENTAL REACH O A STANDARD ORM CONTRACT"
4'. !t is sumitted tat te standard (orm contracts are tose contracts -ere one o( te +arties aituall maes contracts o( te same t+e -it oter +arties in a +articular (orm and allo- little, i( an, variation (rom tat (orm. 87 ;ese contracts entail standardiation o( te +acage o((ered to customers, in muc te same -a, as is standardiation o( a +roduct.88 Due to te commercial nature o( te most o( tese contracts, less attention migt e +aid to issues o( contractual (airness.89 46. ;ere migt e certain conditions in te standard (orm contracts -ic i( +ut into e((ect, -ould negate te main contractual dut.9% uc contracts, in conseuence, ecome unen(orceale, as a +rotection needs to e +rovided against unreasonale conseuences o( -ide and s-ee+ing e?em+tion clauses. 91 /oreover, ever contract contains a core or certain (undamental +rovisions,92-ic i( an +art (ails to onor, -ill e eld to e guilt
87 .5. ales, -tandard ,or$ Contracts , 16 30 ; /OD$& *A@ $ "!@318, 328 19'30. 88 /ar $. #atterson, -tandardi!ation of -tandard ,or$ Contracts , '2 20 @!**!A/ A&D / A$G *A@ $ "!@ 328 2%1%0. 89 Id.
9% Ale?ander v. $ail-a ?ecutive, =19'1> 2 All .$. 442. 91 +urling *td. v. 5radsa-, =19'6> 1 @.*.$. 461. 92 5.". &agarau v. Oriental !nsurance Co. *td, 19960 4 .C.C. 647.
Pleadins o( a reac o( contract irres+ective o( te (act tat an e?em+ting clause as een inserted +ur+orting to +rotect tat +art.93 47. )undamental reac +rotects te interest o( te -eaer +art in te contract.94 An e?em+tion clause o( te contract cannot allo- a +art to te contract to esca+e its liailit and e negligent in carring out its duties -it res+ect to te contract. 9' 48. !t is sumitted tat te e?em+tion clause o( te #atient ndertaing cum
49. !t is sumitted tat tort duties are im+osed la- to +rotect te interest o( societ in (reedom (rom various inds o( arm. 96 ;e are grounded asicall u+on social +olic and not u+on te -ill or intention o( te +arties. ;ere(ore te dut o( ordinar care, tere(ore, does not arise out o( te contract. 97 '%. ;e e?em+tion clause is an incident o( a contract. ;us te e?em+tion clause can e?em+t te de(endants (rom teir liailit in contract, o-ever te e?em+tion (or te de(endants does not cover te amit o( torts.98
93 Id. meaton anscome v. assoon !.ett, 19'30 1 @.*.$. 1468. 94 ivra "asant 5ag-at v. evanta D. !ndular, 1997 A.C.J. 1%14. 9' 5eaumont ;omas v. 5lue tar *ine *td., =1939> 3 All .$. 127 arsales arro-0 *td. v. @allis, =19'6> 1 @.*.$. 936 <. . $enton, *td. v. #almra ;rading Cor+oration o( #anama, =19'7> A.C. .*.0 149 a++eal taen (rom ng.0. 96 $oert A. eligson, Contractual /*e$ption for liabilit' fro$ nelience , 44 10 CA*!)O$&!A *A@ $ "!@ 121, 128 19'60. 97 #$O$ ; A*., ;O$; 478 "ictor . c-art et al. eds., 12 ed. 19''0. 98 @ite v. Jon @ar-ic : Co *td, =19'3> 2 All $ 1%21.
Pleadins '1. A medical +ro(essional o-es a reasonale dut o( care to te +atient -ile carring out te treatment o( te +atient. 99 ;is dut o( care is a dut arising out o( tort la- and is not a contractual sti+ulation. ;ere(ore te dut o( care o( te de(endants cannot e e?em+ted troug te #atient ndertaing cum
'2. !t is sumitted tat -enever a +art reling u+on te e?cul+ator clause o-es a dut o( service to te +ulic, te contract is invalidated as eing contrar to +ulic +olic. 1%% An clause tat is contrar to te +ulic +olic -ould e unen(orceale as against te contracting +art.1%1 ;e +rotection against aridgment o( +ulic +olic is to discourage negligence in(licting damages u+on te -rongdoers. 1%2 /oreover, it also +rotects te consumers o( goods and services (rom ars contracts eing en(orced u+on tem. 1%3 '3. #ulic +olic is a road term allo-ing te Courts to re(use te en(orcement o( a contract on te considerations o( +ulic interest. 1%4 ;e Court in +ursuance o( tis migt relieve a +art o( te dut +laced on it troug an e?em+tion clause o( a contract. 1%' ;us, an as+ect o( te contract aving tendenc to inure +ulic interest or +ulic -el(are -ould e o++osed to +ulic +olic and tus -ould e unen(orceale. 1%6 '4. ;e !ndian Contract Act 1872 e?+licitl +roiits te en(orcement o( suc agreements.1%7An consideration or oect tat is o++osed to +ulic +olic is +roiited
99 -ee Jacob "athew , 2%%'0 6 .C.C. 1. 1%% Cali(ornia #o-der @ors v. Atlantic :#aci(ic $.$. Co., 113 Ca. 329, 336, 4' #ac. 1%1 /.iddalinga++a v. ;.&atara, A.!.$. 197% ant.1'4$..Deeo v. /.".indlear, A.!.$. 199' 5om. 68. 1%2 5isso v. !nland @ater-as Cor+oration, 349 .. 8' 19''0. 1%3 Id. 1%4 ;omsonEC) v. &ational Air+ort Autorit o( !ndia, A.!.$. 1993 Del. 2'2. 1%' <erulal v. /aadeodas /aia, A.!.$. 19'9 .C. 781. 1%6 $attan Cand ira Cand v. Asar &a-a Jung, 19910 3 .C.C. 67. 1%7 !ndian Contracts Act 1872, &o. 9 o( 1872, P 21.
Pleadins it.1%8 ;us, an unconscionale contract -ould e +revented (rom eing en(orced in te interests o( te +ulic.1%9 ''. !t is sumitted tat in te +resent case, te #atient ndertaing cum
'6. !t is sumitted tat a contract is said to e induced undue in(luence i( te relationsi+ et-een te +arties is suc tat one is ale to dominate te -ill o( te oter +art and uses tat +osition to otain an un(air advantage. 111 ;e +art in te su+erior +osition migt +revail u+on te oter +art and induce te oter +art to enter into a n un(air agreement. 112 ndue in(luence constraints (ree agenc, restricts te +o-er o( resistance and rings aout te sumission o( one +art e(ore te oter .113 '7. A +art can e said to dominate te -ill o( te oter +art -en tere is active trust and con(idence et-een te +arties or te +arties are not on an eual (ooting. 114ince, a doctor is clearl on a iger (ooting tat te +atient in terms o( medical no-ledge along -it te e?+ertise o( te intricacies o( te medical +ro(ession,11' and te relationsi+ o( a doctor and
1%8 Id. 1%9 !nland @ater ;rans+ort Cor+oration *imited and Ors. v. 5roo &at
112 Aso umar #atil v. &e- !ndia Assurance Co., A.!.$. 2%%7 Del. 136. 113 /aoo an v. aim Adul $aim, A.!.$. 1964 $a. 2'%. 114 Devi &andan v.
Pleadins a +atient is clearl tat o( trust and con(idence, -erein te +atient +uts is ealt and li(e in te doctorIs ands, 116 it is clear tat doctors e?ercise in(luence over te +atients. '8. !t is sumitted tat te +atient undertaing cum guideline document -ould attract te +rovisions o( P16 o( te !ndian Contract Act, inso(ar te e?em+tion clause is concerned as it is clearl smolic o( an un(air advantage on +art o( te doctors and sta(( o( "asantec os+ital over te +atients, tere rendering te contract voidale at te o+tion o( te +art over -om te un(air advantage -as e?ercised.
116 ida-a v. 5oard o( A.C. .*.0 871 a++eal taen (rom ng.0.
Pleadins
I" THE LIAILIT5 O THE DEENDANTS WOULD NOT MITI6ATE AS THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT NE6LI6ENT"
'9. !t is sumitted tat te liailit o( te de(endants -ould not e reduced as tere is asence o( contriutor negligence on +art o( te de(endants as @A te claimant did not (ail to tae reasonale care o( te sa(et o( te deceased @ in aruendo, even i( te tere -as negligence, it -as not sustantial and @C te claimant cannot e eld liale (or not taing te sa(est course in ligt o( te dangerous situation caused te de(endants. A" THE CLAIMANT HAD TAKEN R EASONALE CARE OR THE SAET5 O THE DECEASED"
6%. !( te +lainti(( (ails to tae reasonale care o( isMer o-n sa(et, ten te de(ence o( contriutor negligence -ould e attracted. 117 ;e claimantIs or te deceasedIs negligence sould contriute in some degree to te inur or deat o( te deceased. 118;e damages in suc cases -ould get a++ortioned as +er te contriution o( negligence ot te +arties.119 61. !t is sumitted tat in te +resent case, te claimant ad taen reasonale care (or is -i(eIs sa(et. e ad sougt medical guidance at te outset o( te disease and even too er (rom olata to
62. )or te de(ence o( contriutor negligence to e attracted, it is necessar tat te negligence on +art o( te +lainti(( -as sustantial. 12% ;e uestion, tus, in all cases is not as to -o ad te last o++ortunit o( avoiding te miscie(, ut -ose act caused te 117 /unici+al Cor+oration o(
Pleadins -rong.121 ;e act o( te +lainti(( needs to mae a sustantial contriution to te damage su((ered te +lainti((.122 63. !t is sumitted tat in te +resent case, te claimantIs -i(e ad to e moved, out o( necessit, (rom "asantec os+ital in olata to 5!/ os+ital
64. !t is sumitted tat -en te creation o( a dangerous situation is ascriale to te negligent act o( te de(endant, e is not to e e?cused (rom liailit (or te conseuent arm reason o( te (act tat te endangered +erson taes a course o( action -ic turns out to not e te sa(est one. 123 6'. !n suc circumstances, te contriutor negligence on te +art o( te +erson inured is not made out unless e is so-n to ave acted -it less caution tan an +erson o( ordinar +rudence -ould ave so-n under te same tring condition. 124 66. !n te +resent case, te dangerous situation -as created te de(endants o-ing to te negligent medical treatment tat -as carried out tem. ;e sa(est course o( action in tat +articular situation -as to si(t te claimantIs -i(e to anoter medical (acilit -ere er treatment could e carried out in a more e((icient manner. ;e course ado+ted -as tat 121 5o Andre-s v. t. $oguvald, 19470 2 All .$..*.0 3'% a++eal taen (rom cot.0. 122 Id. 123 $ A;A&*A* A&D D!$AJ*A*, supra note 8%, at '9'. 124 Ca+lin v. a-es, 18280 3 C. : #. ''4.
Pleadins o( a +erson o( ordinar +rudence and ence te de(ence o( contriutor negligence does not get attracted in tis +articular situation.
Pleadins
" THAT THERE CAN E NO AR ON THE CLAIMANT TO INITIATE A LE6AL PROCEEDIN6S IN UK"
67. !t is sumitted tat te claimant is entitled to sue te de(endants in te 5irmingam Count Court ecause @A recovering damages on tose eads -ic are not allo-ed te !ndian sustantive la-, ut are allo-ed te la- -ould lead to a di((erent cause o( action andMor @to avoid an cances o( dela in granting o( relie( (rom te !ndian Courts. A" DIERENCE IN THE HEADS O DAMA6ES IN ARIOUS 3URISDICTIONS WILL LEAD TO DIERENT CAUSES O ACTION"
68. 5e(ore an +roceeding egins in a con(lict o( la-s case, it is te tas o( te (orum to caracterie an issue eiter as sustantive or +rocedural. 12' @ile sustance is roadl a matter
o(
rigt,126
+rocedure
is
roadl
a
matter
o(
remed127
in
suc
cases.128Caracteriation o( an issue on te asis o( !ndian con(lict o( rules 129 is crucial (or te (orum deciding te case so as to ascertain te governing la-.13% 69.!n tis regard, it is sumitted tat i( tere is an di((erence et-een te and !ndian sustantive la- on te as+ect o( recoverale eads o( damages, ten, suc di((erence leads to di((erent causes o( action. Ascertaining te eads o( damages is a sustantive issue >#? conseuentl, i( te !ndian sustantive la- does not recognie an +articular ead o(
12' !n $e )uldIs state &o. 30, =1966> 2 @.*.$. 717 at 69' ng.0 amln : Co v. ;aliser Distiller, 18940 21 $ .*.0 21 a++eal taen (rom cot.0 Janeen /. Carruters, -ubstance and Procedure in The Conflict of aws< A Continuin Debate in 5elation to Da$aes , '3 30 ; ! &;$&A;!O&A* A&D CO/#A$A;!" *A@ HA$;$*G 691, 692 2%%40. -ee for instance, P 910, #rivate !nternational *a- /iscellaneous #rovisions0 Act 199'. 126 @@ Coo, >-ubstance? and >Procedure? in the Conflict of aws7 42 GA* *.J. 333, 334 19330. 127 Id . 128 Janeen /. Carruters, supra note 12'. 129 !ndian and A.C. 3'6 .*.0 a++eal taen (rom ng.0 <.C C!$ ; t A*., C!$ A&D &O$;I #$!"A; ! &;!;;!O&A* *A@ 67E8 James )ac-ett ed., 13 ed. 19990.
Pleadins damage -ic is recognied in la-, tere -ould e a se+arate cause o( action>##?.ence, te +rinci+le o( claim +reclusion -ould e ina++licale >###?. i. Ascertaining the heads of damages is a substantive issue.
7%. ;e common la- classi(ies recoverale eads o( damages as an issue o( sustantive la-.131 71. ;e reason (or suc caracteriation can e illustrated taing into +ers+ective te lao( a countr tat does not grant damages on account o( +ain and su((ering, tere rendering a non citien, -o meets -it an accident and undergoes +ain and su((ering, -itout su((ering an economical loss, totall remediless. ;us a++ling +rocedural laand caracteriing te eads o( damages as a +rocedural issue in suc cases +oses a situation -erein in essence, no rigt o( te claimant can e en(orced and ence sustantive rigts are adversel a((ected.132 ii. Non- recognition of any head of damage leads of a separate cause of action.
72. !n te illustration aove, toug tere -ould e a civil -rong done according to te lao( -ic te claimant is a citien ut te le* loci delicti, te +lace -ere te tort occurred -ere te claimant migt ave gone to olidaing +ur+oses0, tere -ould e no usti(ication, and conse+uentl' no civil cause o( action.133 73. ;ere(ore, te common la- recognies tat di((erence or di((erences in te recoverale eads o( damage -ill distinguis one cause o( action (rom anoter. 134 74. A similar uestion arose in te case o( 5lac v. Gates,13' -ere te +lainti(( -ido- sougt to secure damages under te ead o( Qloss o( de+endencI (rom an nglis Court on te 131 Ca+lin v. 5os, =1971> A.C. 3'6 .*.0 a++eal taen (rom ng.0, odson, *ord, concurring0 at 379, 1 @.*.$. 1%%3 arding v. @ealands, =2%%6> * 32 a++eal taen (rom ng.0. 132 Id.,at 394. 133 /ostn v. )arigas, 1 Co-+. 161. 134 -ee Chaplin , =1971> A.C. 3'6 .*.0 at 392, 394 2 .5. 67%. 13'=1992> H.5.'26.
Pleadins asis o( a udgment (rom te +anis Court olding te de(endant guilt o( negligentl causing te deat o( te claimantIs usand in +ain. ;e Court reected te claim on te sole ground tat te +anis la- recognies te rigt to recover under te ead o( damage (or Qloss o( de+endenceI -ic -as also recoverale in nglis +roceedings under te )atal Accidents Act 1976. iii. Non- recognition of damages under the head of bereavement in Indian law may lead to a separate cause of action.
7'. ;e nglis statutor la- recognises damages in cases o( deat due to a tort under various eads including tat o( ereavement 136. ;e +ur+ose o( damages (or ereavement made recoverale is regarded as constituting com+ensation (or all nonE +ecuniar loss su((ered te surviving relatives including Kgrie(L or Kmental su((eringL. 137 76. ;ere(ore, i( te !ndian la- does not recognie tis ead o( damage a++ling its o-n sustantive la-,138 ten, in suc cases a rigt, not onl remed, o( te claimant -ould e curtailed. 77. ence, it is sumitted tat anoter Qcause o( actionI -ould arise in terms o( -eter te claimant is entitled to see damages under te ead o( ereavement in te nglis statutor la- -ic -ould ave to e addressed te nglis Civil Courts. ;ere(ore, tere is no ar to (ile a civil action in ngland. 139 iv. The rinciple of claim preclusion is inapplicable.
78. ;e &!D$O!; #rinci+les o( ;ransnational Civil #rocedure regarding te rules o( successive urisdiction, i.e., res udicata is intended to avoid re+etitive litigation. 14%
136 )atal Accidents Act, 1976, c. 3%, P 1A ng.0. 137 *a- Commission o( , $e+ort on #ersonal !nur *itigation E Assessment o( Damages, at 3%E 3 19730 148 #A$*. D5, .C. 19890 ''8..0 148 #A$*. D5, .C. 19890 '19E2%..0. 138 Dr. 5alram #rasad v. Dr. unal aa and Ors.,2%140 1 .C.C. 384. 139 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act, 1982, c. 27, P 34 ng.0 1 D!CG ; A*., supra note, at +. '84. 14% &!D$O!;, supra note 6, art. 28.
Pleadins 79. QClaim +reclusionI means tat a claimant ma not, in a suseuent action, assert a claim tat -as te suect o( a +rior action, -eter te claim -as victorious or de(eated, i( it -as conclusivel determined.141 8%. !n te +resent case, te claimant is seeing damages under te ead o( ereavement or mental and emotional distress in losing is -i(e. 5ut i( is te !ndian Courts do not grant damage under tis ead on te ground tat itIs sustantive la-, i.e., te common la-, does not recognie suc t+e o( damages, ten, tere is no claim +reclusion as it -ould e an instance o( te claim eing le(t undecided due to asence o( a +rovision in la-. " AOID AN5 CHANCES O DELA5 IN 6RANT O R ELIE ROM THE INDIAN COURTS"
81. ;e nglis common la- allo-s +arallel +roceedings in t-o urisdictions onl in unusual circumstances.142 !t as een o+ined in order to address te issue o( is alibi pendens tat te second +roceeding could e staed -it te o+tion o( reo+ening it again in case te (irst +roceeding does not provide ti$el' and satisf'in relief .143 82. ;ere(ore, te &!D$O!; #rinci+les to -ic ot !ndia and are signatories, 144 +rovide tat te court sould decline urisdiction or sus+end te +roceeding, -en te dis+ute is +reviousl +ending in anoter court com+etent to e?ercise urisdiction, unless it appears tat te dis+ute can e e*peditiousl' resolved in tat (orum. 14'
141 &!D$O!; #$!&C!#*
O) ;$A&&A;!O&A* C!"!* #$OCD$ 2%%40, ;ravau? #rR+aratoires, tud *"! 1999 S Doc. 3 at 22. 142Australian Commercial $esearc and Develo+ment *td. v. A.&.F. /cCaugan /ercant 5an *td., =1989> 3 All .$. 6'. 143&!D$O!; #$!&C!#* O) ;$A&&A;!O&A* C!"!* #$OCD$ 2%%40, ;ravau? #rR+aratoires, ;DG *"! 1999 S DOC. 1at 14 DOC. 3 at 23. 144e Assum+tion a0 to te /oot Court #rolem. 14' &!D$O!;, supra note 6, art. 2.6.
Pleadins
I" THAT THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO SUE AND CLAIM DAMA6ES UNDER ARIOUS HEADS"
83. ;e claimant is te usand o( te victimE deceased and as sued te de(endants (or treating is -i(e negligentl, tere causing er deat. 84. ;e common la- ma?im action personalis $oritur cu$ persona, i.e. a +ersonal rigt o( action dies -it te +erson, as een arogated te statutor +rovisions o( *egal $e+resentatives uits Act 18'',146 and )atal Accidents Act 18'' 147. ;ese statutor la-s enale te ?ecutors, Administrators or $e+resentatives to sue (or an -rong committed in te time o( te deceased +erson and also +rovide (or com+ensation to te (amilies (or te loss occasioned te deat o( a +erson caused actionale -rong. 148 8'. !t is sumitted tat te claimant under te aove la-s and te common la- is entitled to various @A +ecuniar @ nonE +ecuniar and@C +unitive damages, due to te commission o( te tort o( negligence te de(endant doctors. A" ENTITLEMENT TO R ECOER PECUNIAR5 DAMA6ES"
86. #ecuniar damages are tose damages, -ic te victim as actuall incurred and are ca+ale o( eing assessed in terms o( mone.149 87. ;e claimant is entitled to +ecuniar damages under te eads o( loss o( income o( te deceased >#? and costs in terms o( te e?+enses incurred in te medical treatment in olata and ##?
146*egal $e+resentatives uits Act 18'', Act, &o.12 o( 18'', tatement o( Oects and $easons =ereina(ter Q*egal $e+resentatives ActI>. 147)atal Accidents Act 18'', &o.12 o( 18'', tatement o( Oects and $easons =ereina(ter Q)atal Accidents ActI>. 148 *egal $e+resentatives Act, supra note 146, P 1 )atal Accidents Act, supranote 147, P 1A.
149 $.D. attangadi v. #est Control !ndia0 #vt. *td., A.!.$. 199' .C. 7'' cited in As-ani umar /isra v. #. #. /uniam 5au, 1999 A.C.J. 11%'.0.
Pleadins i. !oss of income of the deceased leading to loss of dependency.
88. 5ot *egal $e+resentatives uits At 18'' read -it te )atal Accidents Act 18'' allote administrators, e?ecutors or re+resentatives o( te deceased to sue te -rongdoer (or te +ecuniar loss caused to te de+endents. 1'%)or te +ur+oses o( assessing damages to te de+endents, it as een eld tat te income o( te deceased sould e taen into account.1'1 89. ;e u+reme Court o( !ndia as in a similar case used a metod uite similar to te (ormulae +rescried te /edical /al+ractices Act 2%13, 1'2 to calculate te loss o( te income o( te deceased (or granting damages to te de+endents. !n tat case, it too te income o( te deceased at te time o( er deat, and ased on tat income, calculated te sum tat se could ave earned ad se een in a regular o, termed as Ga7. ;en, it reduced 3% T on account o( (uture loss o( income (rom te income o( te deceased, termed as G7. ;en, a deduction o( 1M3 rd(or te +ur+oses o( e?+enditure -as done (rom te income at te time o( deat, termed ere as G'7. ;o te sum G'7, it multi+lied te numer o( lost ears o( li(e o( te deceased -en se could ave earned and also multi+lied te conversion rate (rom dollar to ru+ee in tat case te cou+le -as (rom 0, termed ere as G'7. ;ere(ore, te loss o( income -as ascertained adding to Ga7, te di((erence
et-een G7 and G'7.1'3 9%. !t is sumitted tat te said metod -ill a+tl tae into account te di((erence in te standards o( living o( te +eo+le in and aving to ear te loss o( deceased as (ar as (inancial as+ect is concerned.
1'% *egal $e+resentatives Act, supra note 146, P 1 rM- )atal Accidents Act, supra note 147, P 1A $ A;A&*A* A&D D!$AJ*A*, supra
note8%, at 113. 1'1 &ational !nsurance Co. *td. v. !ndira rivastava, 2%%80 2 .C.C. 763. 1'2e Assum+tion 0 to te /oot Court #rolem. 1'3-ee Dr. Balra$ Prasad , 2%140 1 .C.C. 384.
Pleadins ii. "osts in terms of expenses incurred on various items.
91. !n te cases o( medical negligence, te u+reme Court o( !ndia as a-arded damages on te ground o( e?+enses incurred te claimant on te eads o( cost o( medical treatment including te cost o( medicines, consultantIs (ees, nursing carges and oter ancillar carges lie trans+ortation to and (rom os+ital, 1'4 and te costs incurred in te litigation including te la-er (ees. 1'' " ENTITLEMENT TO R ECOER NON- PECUNIAR5 DAMA6ES"
92. &onE +ecuniar damages are tose damages, -ic are ca+ale o( eing assessed aritmetical calculations.1'6;e claimant is entitled to nonE+ecuniar damages under te eads o( +ain and su((ering o( te deceased >#?loss o( consortium>##?and mental and emotional distress o( te claimant >###?. i. ain and #uffering of the $eceased.
93. ;e aolition o( te ma?im action personalis $oritur cu$ persona, te *egal $e+resentatives uit Act 18'' 1'7 and )atal Accidents Act 18'' 1'8 allo-s (or damages su((ered te deceased e(ore is deat under te eads o( loss o( earnings, +ain and su((ering.1'9 Duration and intensit o( +ain and su((ering are taen into consideration -ile a-arding damages under tis ead. 16% 94. !n te +resent case, te orri(ic im+act o( ;& resulting in te detacment o( sin, 161 (urter aggravated -it te increased vulnerailit o( se+sis due to de+leting immunit as
1'4 ;A#A /A$ O*G, /D!CA* &<*!<&C
A&D ;
*A@ !& ! &D!AN D;! , $ #O&!5!*!;!,
st
$ !<;98 1 edn. 2%1%0. 1''-ee Dr. Balra$ Prasad , 2%140 1 .C.C. 384.
1'6 $.D. attangadi v. #est Control !ndia0 #vt. *td., A.!.$. 199' .C. 7'' cited in As-ani umar /isra v. #. #. /uniam 5au, 1999 A.C.J. 11%' .C.. 1'7 *egal $e+resentatives uits Act 18''$ A;A&*A* A&D D!$AJ*A*, supra note 8%, at 132.
1'8)atal Accidents Act 18'', &o.12 o( 18''. 1'9 O*G, supra note 1'4, at 94E'. 16%-ee Dr. Balra$ Prasad , 2%140 1 .C.C. 384. 161 /oot Court #rolem, 7.
Pleadins a conseuence o( administration o( alarming dosage o( antiEallerg steroids, 162 as caused tremendous +ain and soc to te deceased. ii. !oss of "onsortium.
9'. !n legal +arlance, QconsortiumI is te rigt o( te s+ouse to te com+an, care, el+, com(ort, guidance, societ, solace, a((ection and se?ual relations -it is or er mate. 163 96. ;e onIle u+reme Court o( !ndia as recognied tat te loss o( com+anionsi+, care and +rotection, etc., is a loss (or -ic te s+ouse is entitled to get com+ensated a++ro+riatel.164;ere(ore, granting damages under te ead o( loss o( consortium, te Courts ave made an attem+t to com+ensate te loss o( s+ouseIs a((ection, com(ort, solace, com+anionsi+, societ, assistance, +rotection, care and se?ual relations during te (uture.16' iii. %ental and &motional $istress of the "laimant.
97. !n ngland, ereavement damages 166 are +erceived as +er(orming a smolic (unction o( +roviding some Ksm+atetic recognitionL te state o( te (act o( grie(, sorro-, +ain caused to te claimant on losing some loved one, 167and an e?+ression on te +art o( societ o( te gravit -it -ic it regards te loss o( a uman li(e. 168 98. !n te +resent case, te claimant eing te usand o( te deceased ad to e?+erience te traumatic e?+erience o( aving to see is -i(eIs su((ering on account o( er disease and
162@!**!A/ /A$;!&DA*, /A$;!&DA*N ; ;$A #A$/ACO#O!A 1%21 James .). $enolds et al. eds., 31st ed. 19960 cited in uumar /ueree and 5aidanat alder v. /ala umar
Pleadins er odil reactions to te steroids reclessl administered te de(endants, leading to te -earing o(( o( te sin on er od and culminating in er untimel deat. 169 C" ENTITLEMENT TO R ECOER PUNITIE DAMA6ES"
99. #unitive damages are a-arded to +unis te de(endant and to deter im and oters (rom similar eavior in (uture.17% 1%%. !t as een recognied te u+reme Court tat +unitive damages are routinel a-arded in medical negligence cases in man urisdictions (or recless and re+reensile act te doctors or os+itals in order to send a deterrent message to oter memers o( te medical communit. 171!t is also recognied tat te +atients, irres+ective o( teir social, cultural and economic acground ave a uman $igt to e treated -it dignit.172 1%1. !n te +resent case, administration o( a dose o( 8% mg o( De+omedrol along -it +rescriing inection De+omedrol to e used t-ice dail (or tree das te 1 stde(endant -as in clear violation o( te manu(acturerIs -arning and recommendation, -ic no doctor as to rigt to do. 173 1%2. ;ere(ore, it is sumitted tat te claimant is entitled to +ecuniar, nonE +ecuniar and +unitive damages in ligt o( te loss o( income o( te claimantIs -i(e, mental su((ering and +ain o( ot claimant and is -i(e, costs incurred in contesting litigation in (orm o( travelling e?+enses, la-er services and te +atent negligent act and omission o( te de(endants.
169 /oot Court #rolem, 7. 17% @!&)!*D : JO*O@!CF, ;O$;123% $ogers ed., 18tedn., 2%1%0. 171 *andgra( v. ! )ilm #rods, '11 .. 244 19940 @elc v. +stein '36 .. 2d. 4%8 2%%%0 cited in -ee Dr. Balra$ Prasad , 2%140 1 .C.C. 3840. 172 #ascim 5anga et /adoor amit v. tate o( @est 5engal, 19960 4 .C.C. 37 cited in -ee Dr. Balra$ Prasad , 2%140 1 .C.C. 3840. 173 /oot Court #rolem, 3-ee -uku$ar "ukheree and Baid'anath #alder ,2%%40 !.*.$. 1 Cal. 332.
