Memo Respondent

TM-22

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CARAKUN, AT CARAKUN

IN THE MATTER OF: Writ Petition No.___ of 2015

Mr. Awadhesh

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Petitioner

V.

Republic of Tranvenia and Morx Flod Hospital - - - - - - - - - - - - Respondents

Original Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of Tranvenia MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

-

-

-

-

-

-

i

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

-

-

-

-

-

-

ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

-

-

-

-

-

-

iii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

-

-

-

-

-

vi

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

-

-

-

-

-

-

vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS

-

-

-

-

-

-

viii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

-

-

-

-

-

-

ix

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

PLEADINGS

1. THE STATE HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE DECEASED UNDER ARTICLE 21

OF

CONSTITUTION OF TRANVENIA

-

-

1

2. THE ACT OF MORX FLOD HOSPITAL IS NOT VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 3 DECEASED Under Article 21 2.1 Morx Flod Hospital is not a State

-

-

-

-

3

2.2 Morx Flod Hospital is not violating Right to life and personal liberty -

5

3.THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES AND POLICE ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ABETMENT OF SUICIDE OF MR. AWADHESH UNDER SECTION 306 OF INDIAN PENAL 10 CODE 1860 3.1

Hospital Authorities are not liable for abetment to suicide

3.2

Police was not liable for abetment to suicide

PRAYER

-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10

-

-

13

-

-

x

-

-

xi

i MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Art.

Article

Sec.

Section

¶

Paragraph

IPC

Indian Penal Code

Anr.

Another

Ors.

Others

v.

Versus

WHO

World Health Organisation

AIR

All India Reporter

Cr.

Criminal

Cr.P.C SC DPSP &

Code of Criminal Procedure Supreme Court Directive Principles of State Policy And

COPD

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Hon'ble

Honorable

Pvt. Govt. ICESCR

Private Government International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

ii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


INDEX OF AUTHORITIES DOMESTIC CASES CITED S R. NO.

CITED NAME OF THE CASE

AT

1.

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors, AIR 1981 SC 487 (496)

04

2.

Amalendu Pal v State of W.B., 2010 1 SCC 707.

10

3.

Ashok Vishnu Davare v. State Of Maharashtra, 2004(3)ACR2626(SC).

13

4.

Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 591.

08

5.

Central Inland Water Corpn. v. Brojo, AIR 1986 SC 1571

04

6.

CESC Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose, AIR 1992 SC 573,585.

07

7.

Chander Mohan Khanna v. The National Council of Education Research and Training, AIR 1992 SC 76.

03

8.

C. Ganesh v. The Central Administrative Tribunal Rep. By the Registrar an Ors., 02 2013 (1) SCT 62 (Madras).

9.

Delhi Voluntary Hospital Forum v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2015ELR(APTEL)0112

04

10.

Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State Of A.P, AIR 2010 SC 327.

13

11.

Gowri Mahesh v. State Rep., 2008 Mad 895.

11

12.

Gujarat State Financial Corpn. v. Lotus Hotels, AIR 1983 SC 848.

04

13.

ITC Ltd. v. George Joseph Fernandes and anr., AIR 1989 SC 839

08

14.

Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State Of Gujarat, 2009 GLH ( 2 ) 9.

10

15.

Kishori Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 10 SCC 797.

10

16.

Lata Singh v. State of U.P, (2006) 5 SCC 475.

01

17.

Life Insurance Corporation v. Escorts and ors, AIR 1986 SC 1370(para. 100).

04

18.

Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr LJ 3066 (Raj.).

12

iii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 19.

Mankama v. State of Kerela, AIR2010SC499.

11

20.

Manju Kumar Chaudhary & Anr. v. S.K. Ghosh, 1997 (3) CPJ 246.

06

21.

M. Ramesh Babu & Ors V. State of A.P., 2004(13) CriminalCC591.

14

22.

M. Mohan v. State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626.

13

23.

Padam Singh v. Chief Secretary, Indian Institute of Banker, 2005 AIHC 3670

04

24.

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Union Of India (2002 5 SCC 111).

04

25.

Praveen Pradhan v. State Of Uttranchal & Anr, 2013(2) ACR1712.

12

26.

Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union Of India & Ors, 1989 AIR 2039.

07

27.

Rani Bhatia v. St. Stephens Hospital Society & Ors, 205(2013)DLT630.

05

28.

Rukumani v. State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police Coimbatore, 2008- 13 2-LW(Crl)776.

29.

Sanjay Gupta And Ors v. Shroffs Charity Eye, 85(2000) DLT27.

05

30.

Santosh Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Chennai v. State Human Rights Commission, T.N. and ors, AIR 2005 Mad. 348

08

31.

Santosh Vishwakarma & Anr. v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 2004 (3) MPHT 57 CG.

11

32.

Shyam Lal v. State Of U.P. And Ors., 1998 CriLJ 2879.

04

33.

Smt. Premwati Soni Jain And Ors. v. The State Of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 1977 08 Raj. 116.

34.

Sohan Raj Sharma v. State Of Haryana, AIR2008SC2108

10

35.

S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr, 2011(1)ALD(Cri)227.

11

36.

State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, (1996) 113 PLR 499.

07

37.

State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, AIR 1998 SC 1703.

02

38.

Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 1988 1 SCC 236.

03

iv MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 39.

Vedprakash Bhaiji v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 CriLJ 893.

12

40.

V.K. Abbi v. Director General of Health Services, CWP No.6658/2002

01

FOREIGN CASES CITED S R. NO

CITED CASE CITED

AT

1.

Alma W. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 133, 143144.

09

2.

Case Of H.L. v. The United Kingdom, European Court Of Human Rights, 45508/99 (2004) ECHR 471

06

3.

Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara, (1995) 11 Cal.4th.

09

4.

James D. ASKEW, Ginger Buck, Phillip Mahan v. DCH Regional Health Care Authority, 995 F.2d 1033.

04

5.

Kephart v. Genuity, Inc., (2006)136 Cal.App.4th 280.

08

6.

Lisa M v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, 12 Cal. 4th 294.

09

7.

Miner v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 841 P.2d 1093, 1102 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).

06

8.

O'Connor v. McDonald's Restaurants, (1990)220 Cal.App.3d.

08

9.

Sanderson v. Collins(1904) 1 KB 628

08

10.

Sutherland v. Sutherland, 358 P.2d 776, 785 (Kan. 1961)

06

v MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner in the matter Mr. Awadhesh v. Republic of Tranvenia & Anr. under Art. 2261 of the Constitution of Tranvenia for the violation of fundamental rights. The Respondent reserves the right to challenge the same. The Present Memorandum sets forth the Facts, Contentions and Arguments. 1) The laws of The Republic of Tranvenia are in 'pari materia' with the laws of India. 2) Reservation and treaties entered into by India are to be assumed as reservations and treaties by the Republic of Tranvenia to UDHR. 3) Reports of Law commissions of the Republic of Tranvenia are analogous to those of Law Commission reports of India.

1

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs 1. Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose 2. The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories 3. Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated 4. The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

vi MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


STATEMENT OF ISSUES The following issues are presented before the Hon'ble High Court of Carakun :-

1. WHETHER THE STATE HAS VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF MR. AWADHESH?

2.WHETHER

THE

MORX FLOD HOSPITAL

VIOLATED THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

OF THE

DECEASED? 2.1 Morx Flod Hospital is not a State as prescribed under Art. 12 of Constitution of Tranvenia. 2.2 Morx Flod Hospital has not infringed the Fundamental Right of the deceased as prescribed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of Tranvenia.

3. WHETHER

THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES AND POLICE ARE LIABLE FOR ABETMENT OF

SUICIDE OF MR. AWADHESH?

3.1 Hospital Authorities are not liable for abetment of suicide of Mr. Awadhesh. 3.2 Police is not liable for abetment of suicide of Mr. Awadhesh.

vii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. In the capital, Carakun of the Republic of Tranvenia where problem of corruption persists, Awadhesh, a poor sweeper developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to occupational exposure to dust. He was illiterate and ignorant about govt. insurance schemes. 2. He went to govt. hospital for checkup on 30th September 2014, where he was advised to go for a tuberculin skin test, other scans and X-rays, surgical biopsy in a private clinic, because X ray machines in the govt. hospitals were out of order and pathological tests/blood test facility was not there because of unavailability of Doctors as they were on leave for 3 days. 3. Dr. Gabbaria asked him to go to Morx Flod hospital with a written reference for free checkup. 4. 3rd July- Dr. Daygem asked him to admit for a week assuring him minimum cost for treatment. He gave his thumb impression on a form; details of which was not read out. It authorized the Doctor to perform tests and surgeries involved to cure his issues and if in this course he dies, the Hospital shall not be responsible. It was accompanied with an undertaking to pay 14000/- INR in toto for the accommodation and treatment. The two attendants Mr. Jeane and Mr. Greye made fun of his poverty and even gave him unnecessary sleeping pills. 5. 4th July- He was not allowed to leave to feed his family because of treatment as well as non realization of the sum. 6.

5th July- His family committing suicide due to hunger. But he was restricted to his room by the hospital security guard. He threatened to commit suicide by saying that if he is not let free, abetment of suicide would be filed against them and this was ignored by the hospital staff.

7. 6th July – His health was better. He was allowed to leave but by paying the sum assured added 13 % tax in toto Rs. 15820. They scared him that a criminal complaint will be lodged for assault as well as for non-payment of dues. He decided to sell his kidney for INR 75000 as he was not in a condition to pay. The doctor discussed with others and agreed but he was not paid later. 8. 7th July- After discharging, he went to police station and reported the entire incident and that he was abetted to commit suicide by those hospital attendants but no FIR was lodged. 9. He then went to the Magistrate but was refused. He committed suicide by hanging in his house. 10. The son of the deceased lodged an FIR against the hospital authorities and the police officers for abetment of suicide. The Hon'ble District Court held that it was a case of suicide as hospital authorities succeeded in proving that his mental condition was not good. The matter is listed for hearing before the High Court of the Republic of Tranvenia. viii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1.THAT THE STATE HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE DECEASED UNDER ART. 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TRANVENIA. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Government Hospital representing State has not violated Fundamental Right of the deceased as under Art. 21 of the Constitution of Tranvenia as best possible arrangements in the unforeseeable situation of lack of facilities was made by the Government Hospital hence all efforts were made to save the Right to Health of the deceased and hence they have not violated the art. 21 of the Constitution of Tranvenia.

2.THAT

THE

MORX FLOD HOSPITAL

HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

OF THE

DECEASED UNDER ART. 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TRANVENIA. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Morx Flod Hospital is not a state and even if it is, it did not violate fundamental right enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution of Tranvenia. Acts were done in good faith for the treatment of the deceased and further the wrongful acts on the part of the Dr. Daygem and the two hospital attendants cannot make the Hospital Authorities vicariously liable as they were done in personal capacity and outside the knowledge of the Hospital Authorities. Hence, contention made by the Petitioner that the hospital violated fundamental right of Mr. Awadhesh is baseless and has no point of consideration.

3. THAT

THE

MORX FLOD HOSPITAL

AND

POLICE OFFICIALS

ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE

ABETMENT OF SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Morx Flod Hospital as well as Police are not liable for abetment of suicide of Mr. Awadhesh as acts done by hospital authorities were in good faith and cannot reasonable cause a human being to commit suicide. Further, liability of wrongful acts done by the staff cannot be shifted upon the Hospital Authorities vicariously. Also Police Authorities can refrain from registering FIR when there is any doubt regarding the facts and thus contention of the petitioner that acts of both Morx Flod Hospital and Police Officials abetted the suicide has no point of consideration.

ix MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1. WHETHER

THE

STATE

OF

CARAKUN

HAS

VIOLATED

ANY

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

OF

MR.

AWADHESH? 1. The Respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble High Court of Carakun that the State has fulfilled all its duties as prescribed by the Constitution of Tranvenia and has not neglected in any matter thereof. State has fulfilled its duty to provide adequate health and has not violated the Deceased right to health. The contentions of the State are based on the following basis: 2. Capital Carakun, Tranvenia is by far the most advanced city having rich infrastructure and best medical facilities2. For a country to be so advanced it is understandable that its state machinery is capable enough. It is the Government of Tranvenia that functions so efficiently that the City of Carakun is having such a high regard in infrastructure and health facilities. 3. The Respondent would like to submit before the Hon'ble High Court that the State wholly agrees with the fact that it is duty bound in respect of providing the basic fundamental rights to the Citizens3, but the State would also like to mention that not every right can be availed absolutely, similarly the State is bound by its duty till an extent but after that point the state can’t be held liable for not performing its Duty. 4. It is assumable that in such a developed country the insurance & medical schemes of the State are predominantly functioning in the Country and the Deceased was ignorant about govt. insurance schemes4 and it cannot be expected from the State to go to each and everyone and make them aware about the schemes. Sufficient measures of awareness were taken by the State but still if the Deceased was the one who was ignorant about the various government insurance schemes then the state can’t be held duty bound for the same. 5. The State in its contention is not disputing the fact that on the date of 30th September, 2014 when the Deceased headed to the Govt. hospital, the X-Ray machines and blood test facility were out of order and the doctors were unavailable. In the case of V.K. Abbi v. Director General of Health Services5 the Court stated that “State government does not have unlimited resources in discharging its obligation to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to the good health of all its citizens”. It can be reasonably presumed that all the 2

Fact Sheet ¶ 1. Lata Singh v. State of U.P, (2006) 5 SCC 475. 4 Fact Sheet ¶ 2. 5 CWP No.6658/2002.

3

1 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION facilities in the hospitals like x-ray machines, etc are operating on high-tech machinery and there can be unanticipated mishap in functioning of those machines. 6. Herein the State is not refraining from performing its duty but due to inevitable circumstances the citizens are not able to utilize those amenities which are provided by the State. The vital question that comes here is that in such a situation what the duty of the state is. The contention of the Respondent in the matter referred above is that the State fulfilled its duty, as per the facts Mr. Gabbaria (Government Employed Doctor) gave a written reference to the deceased for a free checkup at the Morx Flod Hospital, the most advanced hospital in the State6. Henceforth the Deceased who came for the check-up at the Government hospital but could not avail the services, was given a reference for a free check-up by the Government doctor for the same at the most advanced hospital of the state. Therefore the duty of the State ceased to exist after giving a free checkup reference. 7. The Facts of the case suggests that the deceased Mr. Awadhesh visited the Government Hospital on 30th September 2014 and further went to the private hospital on 3rd of July, therefore after the visit to the government hospital from where he got the free checkup reference, deceased took around nine months to go to the private hospital and avail treatment.7 In the cases of State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga8 and C. Ganesh v. The Central Administrative Tribunal Rep. By the Registrar and Ors.9, the court went in favor of the victim and not state, but the reason behind the said judgments was that in both these cases the victim needed emergency treatment and therefore they could not afford to take more time and go to government hospitals. Wherein in this case it is evident enough that the deceased Mr. Awadhesh went to the private hospital after nine months and there was no emergency treatment that was required. Hence the state contends that the deceased did not go to the government hospital after nine months and directly went to the private hospital on choice. So there can be no infringement of right to health on the part of the State that can be drawn upon. There could be a high possibility of the Government health facilities working in proper order after the passage of nine months.

6

Fact Sheet ¶ 3. Fact Sheet ¶ 4. 8 AIR 1998 SC 1703. 9 2013 (1) SCT 62 (Madras). 7


N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 8. Therefore the Deceased got timely treatment as he was referred to the private hospital free of costs and even after nine months, the deceased did not turn up in the government hospital. Moreover the deceased was only negligent and ignorant about government schemes and therefore the contention that the State violated the Fundamental Rights of the deceased is completely false & baseless. Duty of the State cannot be unlimited and it is contended by the Respondent that the State accomplished in performing its duty.

2.WHETHER

THE

MORX FLOD HOSPITAL

VIOLATED THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

OF THE

DECEASED? 9. The counsel humbly submits before the Hon'ble High Court of Carakun that Morx Flod Hospital has not violated the fundamental rights as prescribed under the Constitution of Tranvenia. The counsel bases its arguments on two premises. First, that Morx Flod Hospital is not a State or Instrumentality of State as prescribed under Article 12 of Constitution of Tranvenia and also not performing any public function. Secondly, Morx Flod Hospital has not violated the Right to Life and Personal Liberty as prescribed under the Article 21 of Constitution of Tranvenia.

2.1 Morx Flod Hospital is not a State as prescribed under Art. 12 of Constitution of Tranvenia. 10. The respondents submit before the Hon'ble High Court that "Art. 12 should not be interpreted so widely so as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the government within the sweep of expression "State". A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation.10 That obviously would not serve the purpose and may be far from reality. A broad picture of the matter has to be taken and a discerning mind has to be applied keeping the realities and human experiences in view so as to reach a reasonable conclusion.11 11. There is no straitjacket formula to judge whether an authority or person comes under the ambit of state, but factors such as mode of funds, functioning, and its creation are to be

10 11

Chander Mohan Khanna v. The National Council of Education Research and Training, AIR 1992 SC 76. Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 1988 1 SCC 236.


N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION considered and it is not necessary to fulfill all tests for coming at any conclusion. 12 Where an institution is not financially, functionally and administratively controlled by the government, it will not be a State.13 12. Government hospitals running on budgetary support are controlled by Government whereas private hospitals operate on commercial principles. Government hospitals have constitutional mandate to provide free treatment to every citizen irrespective of his social or financial status whereas private hospitals are commercial in nature i.e. profits by charging hefty amounts.14 13. In determining whether a private body is instrumentality or agency of the state some factors have been set by the court15, the functions of the private body are to be closely related to the government functions which are the basic responsibility of a Welfare State16 or the financial assistance should be received from the State17 or the statutory duties are imposed upon the cooperation18. What makes a hospital public is the ownership and not the clientele. Thus because a hospital is a privately owned hospital despite the fact that it is open to the public, it was outside purview of its government authorization19 14. As in instant case Morx Flod Hospital as a private hospital is not following any of these guidelines as the functions of the hospital is to provide health care services to individuals against a financial consideration not like the government hospitals whose main objective is to provide health care services without any monetary gain. Further, no financial assistance was provided to the Morx Flod Hospital by the State which is clear from the facts of the case. Statutory duty imposed upon the Morx Flod Hospital ended when they provided services for the free checkup of the patient. From the aforementioned circumstances the private hospital cannot be taken under the ambit of the state for the violation of the Fundamental Rights mentioned under the Part III of Constitution of Tranvenia. 15. Further counsel on the behalf of respondent states that for the purposes of maintainability of a writ petition (i) The private body must perform public duty. (ii) The decision sought to be 12

Ibid. Padam Singh v. Chief Secretary, Indian Institute of Banker, 2005 AIHC 3670 (All) see also Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Union Of India (2002 5 SCC 111). 14 Delhi Voluntary Hospital Forum v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2015ELR(APTEL)0112. 15 Central Inland Water Corpn v. Brojo, AIR 1986 SC 1571. 16 Ajay Hasia Etc v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors, AIR 1981 SC 487 (496); Life Insurance Corporation v. Escorts and ors, AIR 1986 SC 1370(para. 100). 17 Shyam Lal v. State Of U.P. And Ors., 1998 CriLJ 2879. 18 Gujarat State FInancial Corpn. v. Lotus Hotels, AIR 1983 SC 848. 19 James D. ASKEW, Ginger Buck, Phillip Mahan v. DCH Regional Health Care Authority, 995 F.2d 1033.

13


N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION corrected is a decision taken in discharge of that public duty. (iii) The public duty should be owned to the petitioner. (iv)No mandamus can be issued to reinstate an employee in private employment.20 16. As said in the case of Sanjay Gupta and ors. v. Shroff’s Charity Eye21 that “Running a hospital is held to be an industry by the Supreme Court of India”. The organization running the hospital, therefore, cannot be said to be performing a public duty so as to make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction. 17. In the instant case the Morx Flod Hospital is not delivering a "public function" as can be derived from the above stated cases and hence writ petition is not maintainable under Art. 226 of the Constitution of Tranvenia. 18. Counsel on the behalf of respondents contends that even if the Morx Flod Hospital comes under the ambit of terms "state" or "instrumentality of state" or/and is performing a public function, it has not violated the Fundamental Rights of the deceased as enshrined under the Art. 21 of the Constitution of Tranvenia.

2.2 Morx Flod Hospital has not infringed the Fundamental Right of the deceased as prescribed under Art. 21 of The Constitution of Tranvenia. 19. The respondent submits before the Hon'ble High Court of Carakun that "It is important for the doctors and medical establishments to maintain proper records of patients for their scientific evaluation and to make action plans for future treatment. The legal system relies mainly on documentary evidence in a situation where medical negligence is alleged by the patient or the relatives."22 20. In the instant case, when the patient was made to sign upon the documents produced, it cannot be called as unreasonable as it is the duty of the doctors to maintain such indoor records.23 Furthermore, the patient was informed that there would be charges for the treatment, though minimal but imposition of treatment charges was conveyed to him prior to the treatment.24

20

Rani Bhatia v. St. Stephens Hospital Society & Ors, 205(2013)DLT630. 85(2000)DLT27. 22 Joseph Thomas, Medical records and issues in negligence, available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779965 . 23 Section 1.3.1 and Appendix 3 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. 24 Fact Sheet ¶5. 21


N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION Any objection to the amount of treatment could have been raised earlier before giving the assent and not when legal formalities have already been completed. 21. After parties outwardly manifest their assent to contract, the objective theory governs whether their outward manifestations of assent are actually effective to form a binding contract.25 If a reasonable contracting party would deem the other party’s outward manifestation as assent to contract, in light of the surrounding circumstances, the party receiving that manifestation is justified in regarding it as assent.26 22. In numerous cases, courts have come up with the principle of "duty to read" imposed upon the illiterate party because every man is the best judge of his own interests and hence must take active part for indulging in the contracts to which he is party. Courts have imposed a duty on the illiterate party to ask someone to read and explain the contract to him before signing.27 If the illiterate party fails to have someone read the contract to him and he signs it, courts find him negligent.28 23. In the instant case, the patient though illiterate has a duty to read the contract if not himself than by any other alternative because despite knowing that the contents are not known to him, if he signs it is a fault on his part and he cannot claim it as invalid later on. 24. The counsel submits before the Hon'ble High Court of Carakun that "The hospital professionals assume full control of the liberty and treatment of an incapacitated individual when they considered fit. Court doesn't question the good faith of those professionals or that they acted in applicant's best interests, the very purpose of procedural safeguards is protecting individuals against misjudgments."29 It was held by the court in the case of Manju Kumar Choudhary v. S.K. Ghosh30 that hospital authorities cannot remove a patient until his treatment is complete and he is cured. Thus, it deemed that professionals acting in good faith can impose restrictions upon the liberty of a patient for the best interests of the patient and it does not call upon the liability of violation of Art. 21 of the patient by the doctors.

25

LORD.RICHARD, Williston On Contracts, (West 4th ed. 2009) (1920) Sec 4:2. Supra Note 22 at p. 5. 27 Miner v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 841 P.2d 1093, 1102 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). 28 Sutherland v. Sutherland, 358 P.2d 776, 785 (Kan. 1961). 29 Case Of H.L.. v. The United Kingdom, European Court Of Human Rights, 45508/99 (2004) ECHR 471. 30 1997 (3) CPJ 246. 26


N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 25. In the instant case, the patient was suffering from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) which is a progressive lung disease i.e. it gets worse over time. 31 Furthermore, the signs and symptoms of this disease are not noticeable until condition has considerably worsened.32 The disease is so appalling that even the performance of even routine activities gets limited. It is a life threatening disease which is not curable and doctors don't know how to reverse the damage caused. The only solution is of the treatment which does not cure the disease but slow the progress of the disease so that person suffering feels better and stays more active.33 26. Our constitution has established a welfare state at the federal level as well as at the state level.34 Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligation undertaken in a welfare state which is provided through the Art. 21 of the Constitution35. Right to health is integral to right to life. Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities. Similarly, the Court has upheld the states obligation to maintain health services36. 27. Thus in instant case, once the doctors took up the responsibility of treating the patient for the disease37, they cannot afford the patient deteriorating his awful health condition by getting an exposure to dust rather treatment has to be done in a closed space where there is no such exposure so that patient can be treated well and also the state has a obligation to not to violate the Right to Health of the deceased as prescribed under the Art. 21 of Constitution of India. The Morx Flod Hospital represented as a state has under Article 21 casted an obligation to preserve life and the doctors positioned to meet the state obligations are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving life.38 28. Human Rights have been a crucial ingredient of Fundamental Rights as under Art. 21 of the Constitution of Tranvenia.39 As mentioned in the case of Santosh Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

31

Fact Sheets ¶2. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, What is COPD, available at www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/healthtopics/topics/copd . 33 World Health Organization, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) available at www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs315/en/ . 34 TRANVENIA CONST., Preamble , Art. 37. 35 De DJ, The Constitution of India, Asia Law House, (1166) 3rd Ed. 36 State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, (1996) 113 PLR 499. 37 Fact Sheet ¶4. 38 Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union Of India & Ors, 1989 AIR 2039. 39 CESC Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose, AIR 1992 SC 573,585. 32


N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION v. State Human Rights Commission, T.N.40 "Since the Human Rights Act deals with violation of human rights by a public servant and not others, a Hospital is surely not a public servant, and hence the Human Rights Act will not be applicable". 29. The counsel on the behalf of the respondents contends that the Dr. Daygem and the two attendants are liable in their personal capacity and the doctrine of "Qui Facit per Alium Facit per se" and "Respondeat Superior" would not apply for making the Morx Flod Hospital vicariously liable. "Under the penal law, there is no concept of vicarious liability unless the statute covers the same within its ambit."41 Even if it comes within the penal law, this is based on the general principle of criminal law that there must be blameworthy condition of mind or mens rea in order to make a person criminally liable.42 30. In case of Sanderson v. Collins43, a driver who took his master's car out for a ride without his knowledge and authority will not make the master liable. In the instant case, Hospital Authorities cannot be said to have possessed a guilty mind of defrauding the deceased by the way of selling off of his kidney for the repayment of the dues. 44 The patient did not approach the hospital authorities at the time of deciding upon the sale of his kidney which in itself is an illegal act. In a case it was held that "A person knowingly entering into a contract with an illegal object can't enforce his right thereunder."45 The whole discussion took place between the deceased and Dr. Daygem which was outside the knowledge of the Hospital Authorities and hence, it was a private contract within the personal capacity of the patient and the doctor. 31. In determining an employee's depart from the course and scope of employment, a variety of factors must be considered and weighed, including the intent of the employee; the nature, time and place of the conduct; the work authorized; the amount of freedom allowed.46 32. An employer will not be held liable for an employee’s assault or other intentional tort that did not have a causal nexus to the employee’s work.47 In the cited case, the employee who was

40

AIR 2005 Mad. 348. Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 591. 42 Vibhute K.I., PSA Pillai's Criminal Law, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur,73, 10th ed. 43 (1904) 1 KB 628; See Also: Smt. Premwati Soni Jain And Ors. v. The State Of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 1977 Raj. 116. 44 Fact Sheet ¶8. 45 ITC Ltd. v. George Joseph Fernandes and anr., AIR 1989 SC 839. 46 O'Connor v. McDonald's Restaurants, (1990)220 Cal.App.3d. 47 Kephart v. Genuity, Inc., (2006)136 Cal.App.4th 280. 41


N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION authorized as a driver underwent a road rage conduct which has no nexus with the act he was authorized and thus the employer was not held vicariously liable for the act of his employee. 33. An employer may be, but will not necessarily be, held vicariously liable for an employee's torts that are willful, malicious, or criminal.48 However, vicarious liability is inappropriate when an employee's misconduct does not arise from the conduct of the employer's enterprise, but instead arises from a personal dispute.49 The court explained that "If the employee's tort is personal in nature, mere presence at the place of employment and attendance to occupational duties prior or subsequent to the offense will not give rise to vicarious liability of the employer.50 34. In the instant case, acts done by the two attendants, Mr. Greye and Mr. Smith such as administering of unnecessary sleeping pills and making fun of the poverty of the deceased was within their personal capacity as the work they were authorized of does not constitute all such acts and the hospital authorities were totally unaware of it hence making the Hospital Authorities liable for such acts of the attendants as well as the doctor will be against the principle of criminal justice. "Imposition of vicarious liability would always serve the policy of giving greater assurance of compensation to the victim. But respondeat superior is not merely a legal artifice invoked to reach a deeper pocket but it is based upon an elaborate theory of optimal resource allocation and criminal justice."51 35. Counsel on the behalf of respondent submits before the Hon'ble High Court of Carakun that the Morx Flod Hospital has the duty to preserve the Right to Health of the deceased and the steps taken by not letting him go outside the hospital in the course of the treatment was for the same only. Further, the contract because of which counsel was seeking the violation of Right to Life and Personal Liberty as prescribed under Article 21 of Constitution of Tranvenia was fare so, The chain of incidents happened after that contract were also valid and cannot be said as the violation of fundamental right of the deceased. 36. The contract of selling of kidney was void as the whole discussion between deceased and Dr. Daygem was outside the knowledge of the Hospital Authorities and if deceased after improvement in his health tried to contact the Hospital Authorities the situation would be 48

Lisa M v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, 12 Cal.4th 294. Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara, (1995) 11 Cal.4th. 50 Ibid. 51 Alma W. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 133, 143-144.

49


N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION different. The main aim of the hospital was to provide proper health services to the deceased which they did. Therefore Morx Flod Hospital didn't violate the Right to life and personal liberty prescribed under Art. 21 of Constitution of Tranvenia.

3.WHETHER

THE

HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES

AND

POLICE

ARE

LIABLE

FOR

ABETMENT

OF

SUICIDE OF MR. AWADHESH? 37. The respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble High Court that the hospital authorities and the state, both have no hand in abetting suicide of Mr. Awadhesh and that the deceased’s mental condition was not proper. The respondents' arguments are based on two premises. First, that the Hospital Authorities did not abet the suicide of Mr. Awadhesh and Secondly that the Police was not a cause for the abetment of suicide of Mr. Awadhesh.

3.1 Hospital Authorities are not liable for abetment of suicide of Mr. Awadhesh. 38. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence.52 39. Mr. Awadesh was made fun of by the two attendants and was harassed during his treatment. Merely on the allegations of harassment, conviction in terms of IPC 306 is not sustainable53. Merely on allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.54 In case of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty is not enough.55 In this case the accused defamed deceased that she has relationship with other ladies but that cannot come under abetment of suicide.56 Therefore, the stand of the court is 52

Malik Surendra and Malik Sudeep, Supreme Court on Penal Code, Eastern Book Company,(150)Volume I. Kishori Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 10 SCC 797. 54 Amalendu Pal v State of W.B., 2010 1 SCC 707. 55 Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State Of Gujarat, 2009 GLH ( 2 ) 9. 56 Sohan Raj Sharma v. State Of Haryana, AIR2008SC2108.

53


N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION clear that mere harassment or defaming does not attract S. 306 of IPC and therefore hospital attendants shall not be made liable for abetment of suicide just on the ground that they made fun of his poverty. 40. The attendants gave the accused sleeping pills for a period of maximum two days. To constitute offence under Sec. 306 accused must have provoked incited or induced deceased to commit suicide. There must be mens rea also. The act of accused must be such that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide.57 Herein by giving sleeping pills it cannot be said that the accused was put into such a position that only option left was to commit suicide. 41. Presence of Mens Rea is regarded as one of the basic ingredients as per Sec. 306 of IPC. “By applying law settled by Supreme Court it cannot be definitely said that accused scolded the deceased with mens rea surfacing to abetment of suicide. The court is of the considered view that no offence had been made out under sec 306 of IPC.58 There is no evidence that the hospital attendants wanted to blackmail authorities, only when Mr. Awadhesh went to register the FIR, he mentioned regarding the same. The respondent submits before the court that Awadhesh was in a pitiable condition and also was taking a treatment, hence his suffering was too much and in such circumstances it is normal for a patient to assume things. “No convincing evidence to show that the husband pressurized or coerced the deceased on account of the inadequacy of the dowry she had brought or his unlawful demands for money. The innocence of the appellant is well established from the record.”59 “Court came to the conclusion that there being no legal evidence to establish, any suspicion however strong cannot take place of the truth. The judgment of High Court was set aside and accused were acquitted with the charge”60. “It would be a travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. Consequently the order of framing charge under section 306 IPC is quashed”.61 Therefore in the present case, the petitioner has no evidence to show that the hospital attendants wanted to blackmail the hospital authorities and henceforth there can be no mens rea well established by the side of the Petitioner and without mens rea the hospital attendants cannot be found guilty as under S.306 IPC. 57

Santosh Vishwakarma & Anr. v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 2004 (3) MPHT 57 CG. Gowri Mahesh v. State Rep., 2008 Mad 895. 59 Somnath alias Som Kumar alias Som Pal and ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1492 . 60 Mankama v. State of Kerela, AIR2010SC499. 61 S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr, 2011(1)ALD(Cri)227. 58


N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 42. For abetment to be proved, intention of the accused is the most relevant factor and sometimes even the cause for abetting suicide play an important role on relying whether the accused shall be liable under S.306 IPC or not. “In the suicide note it could not be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life, and accused did not do anything in that behalf".62 In the case of Swamy Prahalladddas v. State of Madhya Pradesh63 it was stated that “the appellant without cause remarked to deceased to commit suicide and henceforth it cannot be constituted as abetment”. Henceforth there was no intention of the Hospital to want that the deceased shall die of suicide. There was no benefit of the Hospital in the same, moreover they would have suffered a loss as the amount to be given to the hospital has not yet been given and plus their reputation was at stake. Henceforth there was neither intention nor any cause to abet the suicide of Mr. Awadhesh by the hospital authorities. 43. In the case of Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan64, because the accused was persistently demanding repayment of money lent to her, the deceased commit suicide. “The court held that the accused did not know that she had purchased poisonous tablets and might commit suicide, he was held not liable” Similarly herein the hospital had no idea about deceased committing suicide, nor did they intentionally instigate, urged or provoked him to commit suicide. 44. Also in case of Mahesh v. State of M.P.65 the court held that there was no evidence to the effect that the accused goaded or urged, or provoked or incited or even encouraged the commission of suicide. Mere failure to fulfill the promise was not sufficient for satisfying ingredients of S.306. “Where a money lender intimidated and goaded the borrower for repayment and the latter in consequence committed suicide. The lender was held to be not guilty of abetment of suicide66”. In the present scenario the accused nor urged, provoked or incited the deceased, returning the amount merely of the Kidney does not amount to such an extreme step like suicide. “Prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents abet the deceased to commit suicide. Before recording conviction it must be satisfied that the accused persons by their conduct created such an inhumane situation that led 62

Malik Surendra and Malik Sudeep, Supreme Court on Penal Code, Eastern Book Company,(152) Volume I. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438; See Also: Praveen Pradhan v. State Of Uttranchal & Anr, 2013(2)ACR1712. 64 1995 Cr LJ 3066 (Raj.). 65 2003 Cr LJ NOC 50 (MP). 66 Vedprakash Bhaiji v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 CriLJ 893. 63


N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION to death as a suicide.”67. Therefore as mentioned by the aforementioned cases it cannot be said that the accused was put into such circumstance that he had to commit suicide. 45. It is therefore humbly submitted before the Court that each individual differs from another and that the human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Tired because of poverty, frustration because of the disease, sadness because of the news of the family and irritated with the hospital who tried to cure Mr. Awadhesh. Court reiterated “If it appears to court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance and discord & such petulance was not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, conscience of court should not be satisfied that accused charged of abetting of suicide should be found guilty- Herein deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in day to day life- In facts and circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under S.306 made out- Hence appellants conviction held unsustainable68”. Also, in case of M. Mohan v. State69 it was held that “there was no proximate link between what deceased was denied and the suicide. Deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences of everyday life. Appellant not being even remotely connected with occurrence, held, cannot be convicted under Sec. 306 of IPC.” 46. Therefore with so many problems as mentioned, the deceased succumbed to the problems faced and therefore committed the suicide. There was no mens rea, no direct act, no instigation, etc. on Awadhesh by the Hospital Authorities to commit suicide.

3.2 Police is not liable for abetment of suicide of Mr. Awadhesh. 47. The counsel on behalf of respondents humbly submits that as per Sec.154 of Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the Police to register FIR in cognizable offences. But whenever one breaches its duty that does not bring in the concept of Abetment of Suicide, for Sec.306 of IPC it is important that there shall be mens rea70 and direct act of done by the accused71.

67

Ashok Vishnu Davare v. State Of Maharashtra, 2004 (3) ACR 2626 (SC). Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State Of A.P, AIR 2010 SC 327. 69 (2011) 3 SCC 626. 70 Rukumani v. State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police Coimbatore, 2008-2-LW(Crl)776. 71 Intimidation Mahesh v. State of M.P. 2003 Cr LJ NOC 50 (MP).

68


N.J. YASASWY MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 48. In the case of M. Ramesh v. State72 the cause for the deceased to commit suicide was that the accused refused to marry her, but it cannot be said that refusal is intentional aiding. The court held that “The contention of the prosecutor that refusal amounts to intentional aiding cannot be accepted and accused cannot be held guilty of the offence under section 306 of IPC” Therefore the mere refusal of police to lodge an FIR cannot make the police liable for intimidating or urging Mr. Awadhesh to commit suicide. 49. As per the facts it is very clear that Mr. Awadhesh was in a pitiable condition and one can’t expect from a person in such condition to behave normally. People behave differently in different situations; some may give up in small things wherein some may never give up. In case of M. Mohan v. State73 “It was held that there was no proximate link between what deceased was denied and the suicide. Deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences of everyday life. Appellant not being even remotely connected with occurrence cannot be convicted under Sec.306 of IPC.” Therefore in the present case, there was no proximate link of Police denying lodging FIR and deceased committing suicide. It can be stated that the deceased was hypersensitive to things and was also in a sorrowful condition at that time. Therefore the police shall not be made liable under S.306 of IPC.

72

2004(13)CriminalCC591. Supra Note 69 at p.13.

73



PRAYER Wherefore in the light of the facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare: 1. That the State has not violated the fundamental Rights of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of Tranvenia and hence it should not be made liable for paying any kind of compensation to the petitioner.

2. That the Morx Flod hospital is not state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India therefore the Petitioner has made an error in filing the case under article 226. And that the Morx Flod Hospital has not violated the Fundamental Right of the deceased and should not be made liable for the independent act of the staff.

3. That the respondents are not liable for abetting the suicide of the deceased and hence has not violated any fundamental right of the petitioner and any provision of the IPC.

And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honorable Court deems fit and proper, for this the Appellants shall duty bound pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ______________________________ _____________________________ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

x MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


BIBLIOGRAPHY

 STATUTES REFERRED 

The Constitution of India, 1950



Indian Penal Code, 1860



Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973



The Transplantation of Human Organn Act, 1994

 REPORTS REFERRED 

Medical Council of India, Code of Ethics Regulation, 2002, Available at: http://www.mciindia.org/RulesandRegulations/CodeofMedicalEthicsRegulations2002.as px.



223rd Law Commission Report, India(2009).



Omprakash V. Nandimath., Consent and Medical Treatment : The legal paradigm in India, Available at: (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/Art.s/PMC2779959/ ).



WHO, Constitution of World Health Organization. Available At www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf.

 BOOKS REFERRED

 Arvind P Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2nd Ed. 2010.

 Durga Das Basu, Comments on the Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis, 8th Ed.  Dr. Jagdish Singh and Vishwa Bhushan, Medical Negligence and Compensation, Bharat Law Publications, 4th Ed. 2010.

 Ganguly, Law relating to Protection of Human Rights and Violation of Human Rights Problems, Dwivedi Law Agency, 1st Ed, 2010.

 K. I. Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 10th Ed. 2012.

xi MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


 K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, R.V. Kelkar's Criminal Procedure, Eastern Book Company, 6th Ed. 2014.

 R.P. Kataria & S.K.P. Sriniwas, The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, Orient Publishing Company, 1st Ed. 2014.

 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, Wadhwa Nagpur, 31st Ed. 2007.  Vinod Nijhawan, Medical Science Helping the Process of Criminal Law, Vinod Publications(P) Ltd.,1st Ed., 2008.

 DJ De, The Constitution of India, Asia Law House, 3rd Ed. 2008.  DATABASES REFERRED 

http://www.manupatra.com



http://www.westlawindia.com



https://www.scconline.in/default.aspk



https://www.jstor.com

xii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Memo Respondent

Recommend Documents