FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

TEAM CODE P-5

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION , 2017

IN THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM OF

PATLIPUTRA , VIHAR

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. VIKASH KAPOOR ...……….……………….………………PLAINTIFF

V.

DR. ANAND RASTOGI………………………………………....DEFENDANT

COMPLAINT NO.*****/2017

FOR EXERCISING COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 2 OF CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT 1986

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER i
 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................. iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. iv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................v
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................... vi
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................................ viii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................ ix
1. Whether The Complaint Against Dr. Rastogi Is Maintainable ......................... ix
2. Whether Dr. Anand Rastogi Was Negligent In Providing Medical Services. .. ix
3. Whether There Was Contributory Negligence On The Part Of Mr. Vikash
Kapoor. .................................................................................................................. ix
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................1
1. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST DR. ANAND RASTOGI IS
MAINTAINABLE ..................................................................................................1
1.1 There Is Presence Of Appropriate Jurisdiction .............................................1
1.2 Vikash Kapoor Falls Under The Ambit Of A Consumer As Per The Act. ...1
1.3 There Was Deficiency In Services Provided By Dr. Anand Rastogi. ..........2
2. DR. RASTOGI WAS NEGLIGENT IN PROVIDING MEDICAL
SERVICES. .............................................................................................................2
2.1 The Professional Skills Have Not Been Exercised With Ordinary Care. .....2
2.2 Absence Of Proper Duty Of Care In The Administration Of Treatment. .....3
2.3 Failure On Part Of Dr. Anand Rastogi To Disclose The Risks And
Consequences Of The Treatment To The Petitioner...........................................5
3. ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON PART OF
VIKASH KAPOOR. ...............................................................................................6
3.1 The Act Of The Petitioner Was Not A Proximate Cause. ............................6
3.2 The Petitioner Took All The Reasonable Care. ............................................6
3.3 Whether The Doctrine Of Alternative Danger Is Applicable. ......................7
Prayer .........................................................................................................................9

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER ii

 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I. R ALL INDIA REPORTER

CO. CORPORATION
C.P. A CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
D.C. F DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
DR. DOCTOR
HON’BLE HONORABLE
LTD. LIMITED
ORS OTHERS
P/V PER VAGINA EXAMINATION
₹ RUPEES
S.C SUPREME COURT
SEC. SECTION
V. VERSUS
¶ PARAGRAPH
% PERCENTAGE
& AND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER iii

 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT ,1986, NO.68, ACT OF PARLIAMENT, 1986 (INDIA)
BOOKS

1. DR. R.K. BANGIA, LAW OF TORTS, 23RD EDITION

CASES

1. JACOB MATHEW VS. STATE OF PUNJAB

2. BOLAM VS FRIERN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
3. HASLBURY’S LAWS OF ENGLAND
4. INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION VS. VP SHANTHA AND ORS.
5. DR. L.B JOSHI VS TB GODWALE
6. DR. P NARSIMHARAO VS. G. JAYPRAKASU
7. SIDAWAY V. BETHLEM ROYAL HOSPITAL GOVERNORS AND ORS., BOLAM TEST
8. A.S. MITTAL V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
9. JONES VS BOYCE
10. SHYAM SUNDAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN
11. GENERAL HOSPITAL OF GREATER MIAMI, INC. V. GAGER
12. MUSACHIA V.ROSMAN

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER iv

 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble District Consumer forum, Patliputra has jurisdiction to try this matter under
Sec. 11(1) and Sec. 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.1

1
Consumer Protection Act ,1986,No.68 ,Act Of Parliament, 1986 (India).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER v

 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I
Vikash Kapoor, aged 65 years, is a renowned person, as he is a holder of vast plots of land,
of Patligram which is a small village in the District of Patliputra in the State of Vihar. His
wife Sindhu Kapoor, aged 62 years, is a home-maker. Dr. Anand Rastogi is a famous
medical practitioner holding a MBBS degree from DIIMS, the best Medical College in the
State, who owns and manages a nursing home in the district which has a panel of doctors
who visit the nursing home on calls, whenever needed. Dr. Anand Rastogi is also
renowned for providing free medical help to the poor.

II
On 01.05.2017, Sindhu Kapoor experienced mild abdominal pain and was taken to the
nursing home of Dr. Anand, who examined her and advised some tests which did not show
any abnormality. Then, Dr. Anand prescribed some medicines and discharged Mrs.
Sindhu. Exactly after 10 days, Sindhu Kapoor again complained of abdominal pain and
was rushed to the nursing home of Dr. Anand who thereafter attended her and advised tests
which led to conclusion that she was suffering from severe acidity. She was administered
medicines and was discharged after 2 days.

III
Sindhu Kapoor again complained of abdominal pain on 21.06.2017 and was rushed to the
nursing home of Dr. Anand who then called Dr. Suman Sharma, a gynecologist posted at
DIIMS and explained the condition of Mrs. Sindhu. Dr. Suman immediately got
Ultrasonography done on her which showed no abnormality. But on doing P/V
Examination, Dr. Suman found her cervix to be hard and uterus to be retroverted and
bulky. Without further delay, Dr. Suman advised Hysterectomy upon Sindhu Kapoor.
Following her advice, Dr. Anand fixed 22.06.2017 as the date for surgery. The risk bond
was signed by Mr. Vikash and the operation was performed. On 29.06.2017 she was
discharged advising her post-operative care. While discharging she complained of mild
abdominal pain but was discharged.

IV
Dissatisfied with Dr. Anand, Mr. Vikash went to Dr. Malik who referred Sindhu to Dr.
Chatterjee, a laparoscopic surgeon at DIIMS who after examining advised open surgery.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER vi

 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

On 01.07.2017 while doing the surgery he found out a pus of one litre inside the abdominal
cavity which was drained and also found the intestines to adhere to each other which could
not be separated through surgery. Sindhu’s condition worsened and she was again operated
on 05.07.2017 and was discharged on 15.07.2017. On 28.07.2017 she again complained of
extreme abdominal pain and died even before she was taken to the hospital.
V
On 02.09.2017, Vikash Kapoor filed a complaint through his counsel in District Consumer
Forum of Patliputra alleging negligence and deficiency in service on part of Dr. Anand and
sought ₹15 lakhs for the same and ₹50000 as legal expenses. An advance notice was sent
to Dr. Anand. The complaint was listed before District Consumer Forum on 10.09.2017
where Dr. Anand prayed for dismissal of the complaint in limine for the reason that the
complainant failed to pay a single penny, however, forum admitted the complaint and fixed
15.09.2017 for final hearing and the respective counsels were directed to complete the
pleadings.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER vii

 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The plaintiff would like to humbly submit before the District Consumer Forum of
Patliputra pleading these major issues for Hon’ble Court’s consideration:
-I-
WHETHER THE COMPLAINT AGAINST DR. RASTOGI, IS MAINTAINABLE.
-II-
WHETHER DR. ANAND RASTOGI WAS NEGLIGENT IN PROVIDING MEDICAL SERVICES.
-III-
WHETHER THERE WAS CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON PART OF VIKASH KAPOOR.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER viii

 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE COMPLAINT AGAINST DR. RASTOGI IS MAINTAINABLE

It is humbly stated that Mr. Vikash Kapoor made a complaint on behalf of the deceased
Mrs. Sindhu Kapoor as her legal representative because she is a ‘consumer’. In the instant
case it has been held that services rendered at a private hospital where services are
rendered on payment of charges and also rendered free of charge to other person availing
such service would fall within the ambit of the expression ‘service’ irrespective of the fact
that a service is rendered free of charge to persons who do not pay for such service.
Therefore, a claim for negligence can succeed even if the medical care was rendered gratis.

2. WHETHER DR. ANAND RASTOGI WAS NEGLIGENT IN PROVIDING MEDICAL SERVICES.

It is humbly submitted that Dr. Anand Rastogi is liable for medical negligence. A medical
professional is expected to exercise his skills with reasonable competence, which the
doctor failed to exercise. Therefore, he should be made liable for medical negligence. A
doctor should also be alert of all the risks he undertakes and the consequences of the
treatment proposed and here the doctor failed to do so in the instant case. Hence, he is
liable for medical negligence.

3. WHETHER THERE WAS CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF MR. VIKASH

KAPOOR.

There was no contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff which ultimately led to death
of wife of the plaintiff (Mr. Vikash Kapoor) because firstly the act of the petitioner is not
proximate cause for the loss he suffered. Secondly petitioner himself had taken proper care
and thirdly doctrine of alternative risk is also applicable in this case. Thus, it is humbly
pleaded before the court of law that there was non-contributory negligence on part of
Vikash Kapoor.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER ix

 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST DR. ANAND RASTOGI IS MAINTAINABLE

The Hon’ble District Consumer Forum of Patliputra has the jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint as Dr. Anand Rastogi and Mr. Vikash Kapoor voluntarily resided and carried on
their businesses. The value of compensation claimed i.e. ₹15 lakhs does not exceed the
limit of ₹20 lakhs2 (A). The complainant, Mr. Vikash Kapoor (on behalf of the deceased;
Deceased, as her legal representative) is a ‘consumer’ 3(B). Deceased is a potential user of
the medical “service”4. Though service of free of charge does not come within the ambit of
‘service’ but remuneration is not a factor of negligence. A claim for negligence can
succeed even if the medical care was rendered gratis. (C)5. Service as defined under
section under 2(1)(o) of the act irrespective of the fact that a service is rendered free of
charge to persons who do not pay for such service would fall within the ambit of
expression ‘Service’.6

1.1 THERE IS PRESENCE OF APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble District Consumer forum of Patliputra has the jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint against Dr. Anand Rastogi as each of the opposite parties voluntarily resided in
Patliputra.7 The cause of action arose were in the jurisdiction of the forum 8. The
compensation claimed for the deficiency in service amounts to ₹15,00,000 which does not
exceed the limit of ₹20,00,000 as per the guidelines stated for the jurisdiction of district
consume forum.9

1.2 VIKASH KAPOOR FALLS UNDER THE AMBIT OF A CONSUMER AS PER THE ACT.

2
Section 11, Consumer Protection Act ,1986
3
Section 2(1)(d), Consumer Protection Act,1986
4
Section 2(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986
5
Prof. T.D.Dogra & Lt. Col. Abhijit Rudra, Lyon’s Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology 11 th edition(2012)
Pg. no. 318
6
Devendra Kumar Sharma & Others Vs. Post Graduate institute of Medical Education and research and
others, 2001,
7
Section 11(2)(a), Consumer Protection Act, 1986
8
Section 11(2)(c), Consumer Protection Act, 1986
9
Section 11(1), Consumer Protection Act, 1986
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER 1
 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

The complainant10, Mr. Vikash Kapoor made a complaint on behalf of the deceased Mrs.
Sindhu Kapoor as her legal representative because she is a ‘consumer’.11

1.3 THERE WAS DEFICIENCY IN SERVICES PROVIDED BY DR. ANAND RASTOGI.

Medical Professional Service comes within the ambit of Service12. Deceased is a potential
user of the service availed by her. Though in the situation where the doctor rendered
service free of charge to patient or under contract of personal service by way of
consultation, diagnosis, and treatment both medicinal and surgical would not fall within the
ambit of Service as defined in section 2(1)(o) of consumer protection act.

In the instant case it has been held that services rendered at a private hospital where
services are rendered on payment of charges and also rendered free of charge to other
person availing such service would fall within the ambit of the expression ‘service’
irrespective of the fact that a service is rendered free of charge to persons who do not pay
for such service. Therefore, a claim for negligence can succeed even if the medical care
was rendered gratis.

Service rendered free or non-payment of dues by patient does not constitute justification
for dereliction of the duty of care. If a medical man accepts responsibility and undertakes
treatment and the patient submitted to his direction and treatment accordingly, he owes a
duty to the patient to use diligence, care, knowledge, skill, and caution in administering the
treatment. No contractual relation was necessary nor was it necessary that the service
should be rendered for reward13.

2. DR. RASTOGI WAS NEGLIGENT IN PROVIDING MEDICAL SERVICES.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that there was negligence on
the part of Dr. Anand Rastogi.

2.1 THE PROFESSIONAL SKILLS HAVE NOT BEEN EXERCISED WITH ORDINARY CARE.

10
Section 2(b)(v), Consumer Protection Act, 1986
11
Devendra Kumar Sharma & Others Vs. Post Graduate institute of Medical Education and research and
others, 2001,
12
Section 2(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
13
Rex v. Baternarz, (1925) 94 L.J. K.B. 791 at 794.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER 2
 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

In Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab it was held that a professional may be held liable for
medical negligence if he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case
the skill he did possess.14 In the given case, Dr. Anand finding her recovery to be normal
and her stitch to be dry, discharged her advising post-operative care. When they went to
another authority that is Dr. Chatterjee then Dr. Chatterjee found pus measuring around
one litre inside the abdominal cavity of Sindhu which was drained and also found the
intestine adhered to each other which could not be separated through surgery. It was a
major failure on the part of Dr. Anand in performing his duty of reasonable care and thus
he is liable to be sued.

In Bolam vs Friern Hospital Management Committee it was held that, a man need not
possess the highest expert skills; it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an
ordinary competent man.15 Here Dr. Anand failed to exercise the ordinary skill as an
ordinary competent man, because Dr. Anand finding her recovery to be normal and her
stitch to be dry, discharged her.

The degree of skill and care required by a medical practitioner explained in Haslbury’s
Laws of England16;

1. That there is usual and normal practice.

2. That the defendant has not adopted it.
3. The course in fact adopted is the one is the one which no professional man of
ordinary skill would have taken had he been acting with ordinary care.

2.2 ABSENCE OF PROPER DUTY OF CARE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF TREATMENT.

The court in the case of Indian Medical Association vs. VP Shantha and Ors., noted that
medical professional did not enjoy any immunity from being sued in tort or contract on the
grounds of negligence17 because it is profession and not occupation. The court held that
“profession” differs from “occupation” especially in context of performance of duties and
hence the occurrence of negligence.

In the case of Dr. L.B Joshi vs TB Godwale the court defined the doctor’s duty of care

14
Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180.
15
Boalm vs Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582, 586.
16
Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180.
17
Indian medical Association vs VP Shantha and others, [1955] 6 SCC 651
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER 3
 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

when he attends to his patient.18 The duties of care are:

 A duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case.

 A duty of care in deciding what treatment to give.
 A duty of care in administration of treatment.

In the given case the doctor when undertook the case, he undertook the other duties of
deciding what treatment to give and proper administration of the treatment. Although Dr.
Anand can be said to have followed the second duty of care of deciding what treatment to
give properly but he failed to provide a duty of care in the administration of the treatment.
Here, Dr. Anand first of all gave her medicines even when the test results was negative in
the first case. Also, the duty of reasonable care was not performed at the time of discharge.
Hence, here Dr. Anand should be held liable for negligence.

In a case of Dr. P Narsimha Rao vs. G. Jayprakasu19 the plaintiff was entitled to claim
compensation because the anesthetist exceeded the anaesthesia requirements in the body.

In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is ample scope for genuine difference of
opinion and one man clearly is not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from
that of other professional men, nor because he has displayed less skill or knowledge than
others would have shown. The true test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or
treatment on the part of a doctor is whether he has been proved to be guilty of such failure
as no doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty of if acting with ordinary care.20

In context of the above decision, negligence is proved on the part of the doctor as was
guilty of failure of exercising his ordinary skill. If the surgeon had acted with ordinary care
he would not have given the medicines for the first time even when nothing was diagnosed.
Also, she would not have been discharged if there would have been exercising of ordinary
skill and prudence by the doctor.

18
Dr. L.B Joshi vs TB Godwale, AIR 1989 P&H 183.
19
Dr. P NarsimhaRao vs. G. Jayprakasu, AIR 1990 AP 207.
20
Hunter v. Hanley, 1955 SC 200.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER 4
 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

2.3 FAILURE ON PART OF DR. ANAND RASTOGI TO DISCLOSE THE RISKS AND

CONSEQUENCES OF THE TREATMENT TO THE PETITIONER.

To prove the negligence of a healthcare professional BOLAM’S TEST emerged in the UK

in 1957. According to the test, there are 4 elements to claim damages in cases of
negligence21. These are:

1. The healthcare professional owed a duty of care

2. The healthcare professional failed that duty
3. The resulting of harm was caused by that breach
4. The patient suffered damage that was foreseeable by the healthcare professional.

In the case of Sidaway v. Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors and Ors., Bolam Test was
adopted as the measure of doctor's duty to disclose information about the potential
consequences and risks of proposed medical treatment.22 In this case, Dr. Anand did not
notify the plaintiff regarding the post discharge risks and consequences and this resulted to
the deterioration of the health of Sindhu and resultantly her death.

In the given case, it was a negligent act on part of the surgeon. Dr. Anand regarding non-
disclosure of the future risks. Thus, he should be held liable for the same.

In the case of A.S. Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh it was held that as long as the doctor
acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession and the court finds that he
has attended the patient with due care, skill and diligence and if the patient still does not
survive, or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor guilty of
negligence.23 In the present case, however, the conclusion of negligence against was drawn
against Dr. Anand by applying the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur, as the patient
complained of mild abdominal pain soon after the discharge.24Also later on it was found
that pus measuring around one litre inside the abdominal cavity of Sindhu which was
drained and also found the intestine adhered to each other which could not be separated
through surgery.25 Thus, Dr. Anand should be held liable for negligence.

21
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180.
22
Sidaway v. Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors and Ors., [1985] 1 All ER 643.
23
A.S. Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1570.
24
Factsheet ¶ 6.
25
Factsheet ¶ 7.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER 5
 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

3. ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON PART OF VIKASH

KAPOOR.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble District Consumer Forum, Patliputra that
there was no contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff leading to death of wife of the
plaintiff (Mr. Vikash Kapoor).

3.1 THE ACT OF THE PETITIONER WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE.

It is humbly pleaded before the court of law that an accident would be said to be a result of
contributory negligence if “the proximate cause of the accident is the act or omission is
amounting to want of ordinary care of defiance of duty of care on the part of complaining
party has co joined with the other party negligence.”26

In the given case the act of shifting Sindhu Kapoor to a different hospital is not a
proximate cause of the injury caused her. Rather it was Dr. Anand Rastogi, who examined
her and advised some tests, the results of which did not show any abnormality. Yet he
prescribed some medicines.27 Hence, this act did not amount to contributory negligence on
part of Vikash Kapoor.

3.2 THE PETITIONER TOOK ALL THE REASONABLE CARE.

Contributory negligence is applicable solely to the conduct of plaintiff. This is a defense in

which the defendant has to prove that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care of his own
safety that contributed to the harm suffered by plaintiff.28

In this case Sindhu Kapoor’s husband Vishal Kapoor took all the reasonable care. After the
test has been done on Sindhu Kapoor, Dr. Anand despite of normal result gave certain
medicine. After having those medicines, she suffered severe acidity issues. Dissatisfied
with Dr. Anand, Vikash Kapoor took his wife to his friend, Dr. Malik who upon
examination referred Sindhu to Dr. Chatterjee, a Laparoscopic Surgeon at DIIMS. Dr.
Chatterjee also ran a private clinic. 29 In this way it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble
court of law that Vikash Kapoor was not liable.

26
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. LakshmanIyer, AIR 2003 SC 4182.
27
Factsheet ¶2.
28
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. LakshmanIyer, AIR 2003 SC 4182.
29
Factsheet ¶7.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER 6
 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

In a landmark case certain rules were given for proving medical negligence. The rules are:

1. The plaintiff did not own a duty of care to the other party rather he owed a duty of
care to himself.30
2. It is not enough to show that plaintiff did not take due care rather it has also to be
proved that it is the lack of care that contributed to the damage.31

In the given case the plaintiff owed a duty of care to himself and he undertook all the
duties carefully. Moreover, Vikash Kapoor acted in due care and negligence as he acted as
per the advice of Dr. Anand Rastogi is a renowned medical practitioner holding a MBBS
degree from DIIMS, the rank one medical college in the state. Dissatisfied with Dr. Anand,
Vikash Kapoor took his wife to his friend, Dr. Malik who upon examination referred
Sindhu to Dr. Chatterjee.32

Thus, Dr. Anand was solely responsible for the condition of Sidhu rather Mr. Vikash
Kapoor whose act did not constitute contributory negligence.

3.3 WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER IS APPLICABLE.

It is humbly submitted before the court of law that although the plaintiff is supposed to be
careful in spite of defendant’s negligence, there may be certain cases where the plaintiff is
justified in taking some risks because of some dangerous situations created by plaintiff.

The law therefore permits the plaintiff to encounter an alternative danger to save him from
the danger posed by the defendant. This principle was clearly used and explained in the
33
case of Jones vs Boyce. This principle is known as doctrine of alternative danger. This
doctrine was also opined by Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Sundar vs State of
Rajasthan. 34

In the given case after getting discharged, Sindhu again complained of mild abdominal
pain and Dr. Anand asked her to get ultrasonography and X-ray done and return with the
test results. Dissatisfied with Dr. Anand, Vikash Kapoor took his wife to his friend, Dr.

30
Nance vs British Columbia Electric Rail Corp., [1951] A.C. 601.
31
Ibid.
32
Factsheet ¶7.
33
Jones vs Boyce, [1816] 1 Stark 493.
34
Shyam Sundar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 890.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER 7
 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Malik who upon examination referred Sindhu to Dr. Chatterjee, a Laparoscopic Surgeon at
DIIMS. 35

Vikash Kapoor took such a risk because of the pathetic situation created pursuant to
discharge and according to the doctrine of alternative danger risks taken due to the
dangerous situations created by the defendant does not amount to contributory negligence
on the part of the plaintiff.

In 1964 in the case of General Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Gager 36it so held, and in
1966, in Musachia v. Rosman 37the court said: It is only when negligent acts on the part of
the plaintiff have a direct and proximate causal relation, or contribute in some appreciable
degree; to the injury that recovery is precluded. In the given case the act on the part of the
plaintiff was not a proximate cause hence there is no contributory negligence.

35
Factsheet ¶7.
36
Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Gager, 160 So.2d 749 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).
37
Musachia v. Rosman, 190 So.2d 47, 50 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966); Bessett v. Hackett, 66 So.2d 694 (Fla. 1953).
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER 8
 FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and in light of the
provisions of the Constitution applied and arguments advanced; it is most humbly pleaded
before the Hon’ble Court that this Court adjudges and declare that:
1. That the Complaint filed by the Vikash Kapoor for medical negligence is
maintainable before the District Consumer Forum, Patliputra.
2. That the Dr. Anand Rastogi is negligent in providing medical services.
3. That there is no contributory negligence in the part off the Vikash Kapoor.

And pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of
justice, fairness, equity and good conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF’S

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PETITIONER 9