Memorial on behalf of Respondent

TEAM CODE: TC-J133

TC-

Intra Class Moot Court

Competition, 2017

IN THE JURISDICTION OF HON’BLE COURT OF INDIA

Sandeep Patil ….……….Appellant

v.
Breach Candy Hospital

Along with

Breach Candy Hospital .…………Respondent

v
Sandeep Patil

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 1 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERIAL TOPIC PAGE NO.

NO.

1. List of abbreviations 3
2. The Index of Authorities 4
3. The Statement of Jurisdiction 6
4. The Statement of Facts 7
5. The Statement of Issues 9
6. The Summary of Arguments 10
7. The Argument Advanced 12
8. The Prayer 19

Page 2 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

SERIAL ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

NO.
1. A.I.R. All India Reporter

2. S.C Supreme Court

3. S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

4. H.P Himachal Pradesh

5. M.P. Madhya Pradesh

6. Bom. Bombay

7. Raj. Rajasthan

8. W.L.R Washington Law Report

9. v. Versus
10. Hon’ble Honorable

Page 3 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A.TABLE OF CASES

SERIAL NAME OF CASE AND CITATION PAGE

No. No.
1. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Comittee 16
2. Dr. Laxman Balkrishnan Josi v. Trimbak Bapu 13
Godbole
3. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab 12,17
4. Kunal Saha v. Sukumar Mukherjee 17
5. Kunjan Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh 14
6. Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital & Medical 13,17
Research
7. Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee 13
8. Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq 16

9. Moni v. State of Kerala 18

10. Philips India Ltd. Kunju Punnu 14

11. Rajmal v. State of Rajasthan 15

12. Scott v. London & St. Katherine Docks 13

B.BOOKS, STATUTE AND REPORTS

SERIAL NAME OF THE BOOK, THE AUTHOR OR PUBLISHER

No.
1. Law of Torts (R.K Bangia ,twenty thired edition, Allahabad Law Agency)
2. Law of Torts (S.P Singh, fifth edition, Universal Law Publishing Co Ltd)
3. The Consumer Protection Act,1986

Page 4 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

C. DYNAMIC LINKS

1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.scconline.com
3. Ww.lawoctopus.com

Page 5 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the appellant has approached the Hon’ble court invoking its
jurisdiction under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The appellant has insisted a civil suit for Medical Negligence where they plead for recovering
the loss amount before this Hon’ble court.

Page 6 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:
1. The Appellant, Mr. Sandeep Patil, aged about 45 years is a resident at Kandivali East of
Mumbai. On March 2014, Mr. Patil who was suffering from chronic renal failure was
referred by the director of Health Services to Breach Candy Hospital in Mumbai for the
purpose of a kidney transplant.Mr. Patil was already undergoing haemodialysis twice a
week and was waiting for a suitable kidney donor.
2. On May 20, 2014, Mr. Patil approached Dr. Pradeep Kumar Chakroborty, the
respondent, a senior consultant at Breach Candy Hospital , with high fever. However,
Mr. Patil refused hospitalization despite the advice of the respondent. On May 29, 2014 ,
Appellant who still had high fever agreed to get admitted into the hospital due to his
serious condition.
3. On May 30,2014, the appellant was further investigated for typhoid fever, which was
negative. He was also investigated for ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), which was
expectedly high in view of renal failure with anemia infection .Urine analysis was also
carried out which showed the presence of bacteria.
4. On June 3, 2014, the reports of the urine culture and sensitivity showed a severe urinary
tract infection due to Klebsiella species (1 lac/ml) responsive only to Amikacin and
Methenamine Mandelate. Methenamine Maneates cannot be used in patients suffering
from renal failure. So, he was injected with Amikacin for 3 days (from June 5, 2014 to
June 7, 2014). Upon treatment, the temperature of the appellant rapidly subsided.
5. On June 11, 2014, the appellant complained to the respondent that he had slight tinnitus
(ringing in the ear) while at the haemodialysis unit. It is alleged that upon hearing the
complaint of the appellant, the respondent immediately told the appellant to stop taking
Amikacin and Augmentin and made corresponding changes in the discharge card but,
the appellant continued to take Amikacin until June 17, 2014. Thereafter, Mr.Patil was
not under the treatment of Dr. Pradeep.
6. On June 14, 2014, June 18,2014 and June 20,2014 the respondent received
haemodialysis at Breach Candy Hospital and allegedly did not complain of his deafness
(that developed) during those periods. On June 25, 2014, the appellant, got admitted to
Kothari Hospital discharging himself from Breach Candy. However, the appellant
allegedly did not complain of deafness during this period and conversed with doctors
normally, as is proved from their evidence.
7. On June 30,2014, the appellant was operated upon for a transplant and on August 13,
2014, the appellant was discharged from Kothari Hospital post his transplant.
8. On September ,2014, a complaint was filed in State Consumer Commission, Mumbai
against the respondent and the hospital claiming of an amount of INR 50,00,000 /- on
grounds of medical negligence, irreparable hearing loss and mental agony. The State
Commission ordered compensation of INR 200,000 to the appellant on August 3, 2015.
9. The appellant filed an appeal in National Commission on September 5,2015 claiming
enhanced compensation of an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-
Page 7 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

10. The National Commission directed the nomination of an expert from the All India
Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi to examine the matter and give an unbiased and
neutral opinion. AIIMS nominated Dr. Tanmai Ghosh who was of the opinion that the
Doctor was negligent o his part for not taking reasonable care which he was supposed to
take during his course of treatment.
11. The National Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 40, 00,000 to Mr. Patil for the
loss which he incurred.
12. Both the parties approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The matter is now before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Page 8 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE-1:
Whether the respondent was negligent or not?

ISSUE-2:
Who would be liable to pay for the damages?

Page 9 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the respondent was negligent or not?

It is humbly submitted that a doctor owes certain duties to the patient who consults him for
illness. A deficiency in this duty results in negligence. A medical practitioner faced with an
emergency ordinarily tries his best to redeem the patient out of his suffering. He does not gain
anything by acting with negligence or by omitting to do an act. Mr. Patil approached Dr.
Pradeep Kumar Chakroborty, the respondent, a senior consultant at Breach Candy Hospital,
with high fever. The Appellant developed urinary tract infection due to Klebsiella species which
is responsive only to Amikacin and Methylamine Man elate. Methylamine Mandela cannot be
used in patients suffering from renal failure. So, he was injected with Amikacin for 3 upon
treatment, the temperature of the appellant rapidly subsided. It was necessary for the respondent
to give appellant, Amikacin in order to improve his condition. And after giving him Amikacin,
the appellant’s temperature dropped subsequently. The Appellant exercised reasonable care that
was needed and hence, was not negligent. The respondent took reasonable care and advised the
appellant not to take Amikacin but the appellant did not listen. Moreover, he did not complain
about his deafness again.
The medicine given the Appellant was necessary in order to improve his condition. Amikacin
helped by dropping the temperate of the appellant.The Appellant heard slight tinnitus and he
complained about the same to the doctor. Upon hearing the complaint the respondent
immediately told the appellant to stop taking Amikacin and Augmenting and made
corresponding changes in the discharge card but, the appellant continued to take Amikacin for 3
more days.
The respondent took reasonable care and advised the appellant not to take Amikacin but the
appellant did not listen. Moreover, the appellant did not complain about his deafness again.The
doctor did what was necessary to save the patient and thus, was not negligent.

2.Who would be liable to pay for the damages?

It is humbly contended that the respondent would not be held liable as he was not negligent. The
appellant himself was responsible for his sufferings as he adhere to the respondent’s advice nor
did he further inform the respondent about his deafness. The Respondant took reasonable care
and caution and did what was necessary in order to save the appellant. He advised the appellant
not to take Amikacin upon hearing that the appellant had slight tinnitus in his ears, the
respondent advised the appellant to stop taking Amikacin but the appellant continued to take it.
Permanent deafness and the mental agony suffered by the appellant was not due to the
negligence of the Respondant but was due to his own carelessness. The Respondant was not
negligent. He took reasonable care that was needed in order to improve the Appellants’s
condition. He did what was necessary and could not be he held liable for being negligent. The

Page 10 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

medicine given the Appellant was necessary in order to improve his condition. Amikacin helped
by dropping the temperate of the appellant. The Appellant heard slight tinnitus and he
complained about the same to the doctor. Upon hearing the complaint the respondent
immediately told the appellant to stop taking Amikacin and Augmenting and made
corresponding changes in the discharge card but, the appellant continued to take Amikacin for 3
more days. The Respondant was not negligent. He took reasonable care that was needed in
order to improve the Appellants’s condition. He did what was necessary and could not be he
held liable for being negligent. The appellant on having slight tinnitus got advice from the
respondant to stop taking Amikacin didn’t adhere to the advice and continued to take Amikacin,
Further, on he did not complain about it further and was conversing with the doctors normally.
And thus the doctor was not negligent and cannot be held liable to pay compensation.

Page 11 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

Whether the respondent was negligent or not?

It is humbly submitted that a doctor owes certain duties to the patient who consults him for
illness. A deficiency in this duty results in negligence.
The Apex Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1, explained -
“Any reasonable man entering into a profession which requires a particular level of
learning to be called a profession of that branch , impliedly assures the person dealing with
him that the skill which he professes to possess shall be exercised and exercised with
reasonable degree of care and caution .He does not assure his client of the result. A lawyer
doesn’t tell his client that a client shall win the case in all circumstances. A physician
would not assure the patient of recovery in every case. A surgeon cant and doesn’t
guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent
of 100% for the person operated on the only assurance with such a professional can give or
can be understood to have given by implications is that he require skill in that branch of
that profession which he is practicing and while undertaking the performance of the task
entrusted to him he would be exercising his skill with reasonable with competence. This is
all what the person approaching the profession can expect."

A medical practitioner faced with an emergency ordinarily tries his best to redeem the
patient out of his suffering. He does not gain anything by acting with negligence or by
omitting to do an act. Obviously, therefore, it will be for the complaint to clearly make out
of case of negligence before a negligence practitioners charged with or proceeded against
criminally. “A surgeon with shaky hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a
successful operation and a quivering physician cannot administer the end-dose of medicine
to his patient,”

Mr. Patil approached Dr. Pradeep Kumar Chakroborty, the respondent, a senior consultant at
Breach Candy Hospital, with high fever. However, Mr. Patil refused hospitalization despite the
advice of the respondent. On May 29, 2014 , Appellant who still had high fever agreed to get
admitted into the hospital due to his serious condition .On May 30 ,2014, the appellant was
further investigated for typhoid fever, which was negative. He was also investigated for ESR
(erythrocyte sedimentation rate), which was expectedly high in view of renal failure with
anemia infection .Urine analysis was also carried out which showed the presence of bacteria.

1
A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3180
Page 12 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

The Appellant developed urinary tract infection due to Klebsiella species which is responsive
only to Amikacin and Methylamine Man elate. Methylamine Mandela cannot be used in
patients suffering from renal failure. So, he was injected with Amikacin for 3 upon treatment,
the temperature of the appellant rapidly subsided.
It was necessary for the respondent to give appellant, Amikacin in order to improve his
condition. And after giving him Amikacin, the appellant’s temperature dropped
subsequently. The Appellant exercised reasonable care that was needed and hence, was not
negligent.

The case, Scott V. London and St. Katherine Docks Co. 2 explained -
“Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the respondent or his servant and the
accident is such as in the ordinary course of thing does not happen if those who have the
management use proper case, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation by the
respondent that the accident arose from want of care.
In Dr. Laxman Balkrishnan Joshi v Trimbak Bapu3, the petitioner must bring to his task a
reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.
Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care incompetence judged in the light of the
particular circumstances of each case what the law requires. The doctor no doubt has discretion
in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively
ampler in case of emergency.
In the above mentioned case the son of the respondent aged about 20 years met with a accident
on a sea beach which resulted in the fracture of the femur of his left leg. He was taken to the
appellant hospital for treatment. What the appellant did was to reduce the fracture, and in doing
so, he did not give anesthetics to the patient but contended himself a single dose of morphine
injection. He used excessive force in going through this treatment using three of his attendants
for pulling the injured leg of the patient. He then put his leg in Plaster of Paris .The treatment
resulted in shock causing the death of the patient. The doctor was held guilty for the negligence
by the Supreme Court.
In Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee4, the Supreme Court said that the doctor
could not be held liable only because something has gone wrong. However if the doctor fails to
provide amenities, fundamental for patients, such failure would amount to medical malpractice.
In Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research5, the Supreme Court held that
the doctor often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves the higher element of risk, but
which he honestly leave as providing greater chance of success for the patient rather than a
procedure involving lesser risk but higher chance of failure. And just because a doctor in view

2
(1865) 3 H . & C. 596
3
A.I.R 1989 P.H. 183 at 185
4
A.I.R. 210 S.C. 1162
5
2010 3 S.C.C. 480
Page 13 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

of the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her
suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
In Kunjan Sharma v. State of H.P.6, the deceased gave birth to female child through normal
delivery without any complication. There become subsequent death of deceased due to sudden
cardio respiratory arrest . The doctor and nursing did what they could do in such circumstances
and the doctor performed his duty and exercised an ordinary degree of professional skill and
competence. It was held that there was not medical negligence.
The Bombay high court in the case of Philips India Ltd. V. Kunju Punnu7where the
appellant’s son died while being treated for illness by the respondent company doctor the court
observed that “the standard of care which the law requires is not an insurance against accidental
slips. It is such degree of care as a normally skillful member of the profession may reasonably
expected to exercise in actual circumstances of the case in question. It is not every slip or
mistake which imposes negligence.”
The medicine given the Appellant was necessary in order to improve his condition. Amikacin
helped by dropping the temperate of the appellant.
The Appellant heard slight tinnitus and he complained about the same to the doctor. Upon
hearing the complaint the respondent immediately told the appellant to stop taking Amikacin
and Augmenting and made corresponding changes in the discharge card but, the appellant
continued to take Amikacin until June 17, 2014.
The respondent took reasonable care and advised the appellant not to take Amikacin but the
appellant did not listen. Moreover, the appellant did not complain about his deafness again.

The doctor did what was necessary to save the patient and thus, was not negligent.

6
A.I.R. 2011 H.P 15
7
A.I.R. 1975 Bom. 306
Page 14 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

ISSUE 2

Who would be liable to pay for the damages?

It is humbly contended that the respondent would not be held liable as he was not negligent.
The appellant himself was responsible for his sufferings as he adhere to the respondent’s
advice nor did he further inform the respondent about his deafness.

In Rajmal v. State of Rajasthan8, the death of the petitioner’s wife was caused on 2 April,
1989, while she was being operated for Laparoscopic Tubectomy operation at a primary health
centre. There was found to be no negligence on the part of the doctor conducting the operation,
nor could his competence, integrity or efforts be doubted. The apparent cause of death was lack
of adequate facilities in the form of proper equipment, as well as trained and qualified
anesthetist.
In Smt. Laxmidevi v. State of M.P. 9,a child was born despite sterilization operation .It may
however be mentioned that the surgical intervention in sterilization operation is undertaken
under general anesthesia .It is not a surgery over any part or organ of human body as in
sterilization operation right and left fallopian tubes are closed and they are not completely cut
which can always have a possibility of opening of the knot of the fallopian tubes facilitating
spermatozoa to gross embryo into the womb. In instance case, operating surgeon while
describing nature of surgery had demonstrated statement that since fallopian tubes are closed by
trying than from outside, there exists every possibility of opening of the knot ,high may result in
conception pregnancy by a lady on a variety of physical factors and natural circumstances.
Thus, surgeon explained about consequences and chances of failure of operation and the
plaintiff voluntarily agreed for the operation. However, even after conceiving inspire of
operation, the plaintiff neither complained to the surgeon nor acted for termination of
pregnancy. The court held that accidental opening of knot of the fallopian due to physical
factors and natural circumstances cannot be termed as ‘negligence’. As subsequent development
was beyond the control of the surgeon. Plaintiff having failed to establish negligence on the part
of surgeon is not entitled to any compensation.
In the following case, the Respondant took reasonable care and caution and did what was
necessary in order to save the appellant. He advised the appellant not to take Amikacin upon
hearing that the appellant had slight tinnitus in his ears, the respondent advised the appellant to
stop taking Amikacin but the appellant continued to take it. Permanent deafness and the mental
agony suffered by the appellant was not due to the negligence of the Respondant but was due to
his own carelessness. The Respondant was not negligent and could not be held liable.

8
A.I.R. 1996 Raj. 80.
9
A.I.R. 2011 M.P, 47
Page 15 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

In England, a doctor who acts in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a
responsible body of a medical man is not negligent merely because there is a body of opinion
that takes a contrary view. In the case of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee10
it was observed that “the test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man excursing and
professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill; it is well
established law that is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man
excreting that particular art. In the case of Medical Negligence means failure to act in
accordance with the standard of reasonably competent man at the time. There may be one or
more perfectly proper standard and if he conforms with one of these proper standards, then he is
not negligent.
In Martin F.D’souza V. Mohd. Ishfaq11 ; Mohd. Ishfaq suffered from chronic renal failure
and was awaiting kidney transplant and had undergone treatment for a brief period with the
physician, Martin f.d’souza for unitary track and blood infection. He alleged that due to
administration of anti-biotic ‘Amikacin’ he suffered hearing impairment. National commission
awarded rs.7 lakh towards compensation. On appeal of Dr. Martin D’Souza the Supreme Court
ruled that the doctor was faced with a situation to choose between devil and the deep sea. They
have to choose to save the life of the patient rather than his hearing. In this case, the expert
evidence was obtained from the AIMS which opened that there was several factor that can cause
loss of hearing and regarding the deafness of the patient. Doctor filed notes that they freely
conversed with the patient in several meetings. The Supreme Court observed that the consumer
for a must avail the expert opinion before taking a decision and must not substitute their own
view over that of the specialists.
Complaint was dismissed and Apex Court also directed – we therefore direct that the complaint
is received against a doctor or hospital by the consumer forum or by the criminal court then
before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made to the
consumer forum or criminal court should first refer to the matter to the competent doctor or
committee of doctor specialized in field reeling to which the medical negligence is attributed
and only after the the doctor or committee report that the prima facia case of medical negligence
should notice be issued to the concerned hospital/doctor. This is necessary to avoid harassment
to doctor who may not be ultimately found negligent.
The Respondant was not negligent. He took reasonable care that was needed in order to improve
the Appellants’s condition. He did what was necessary and could not be he held liable for being
negligent. The appellant on having slight tinnitus getting advice from the respondant to stop
taking Amikacin didn’t adhere to the advice and continued to take Amikacin, Further, on he did
not complain about it further and was conversing with the doctors normally. The doctor was
not negligent and cannot be held liable to pay compensation.

10
[1957] 1 W.L.R. 5 82.
11
2009 CTJ 352 (SC).
Page 16 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

In Kunal Saha v. Sukumar Mukhherjee12, Dr. Kunal Saha filed a complaint alleging medical
negligence leading to the death of his 36 years old wife, Smt. Anuradha Saha against Advanced
Medicare and Research Institute Ltd., Calcutta.Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Dr. B. Haldar, DR.
Balram Prasad, Dr. Abhani Rai Chowdhary, DR. Kaushik Nandi. He also filed a complaint
against Beach Candy Hospital Doctor’s in Mumbai.
Saha’s came to India for holiday during April-May, 1998 from United State. Dr.Kunal Saha is a
research doctor doing research programme . She developed symptoms of rashes over her body
and received treatment from doctors and AMRI Hospital. She was out patient uptil 10-5-1998
and on 11-5-1998 she was admitted in AMRI on HIV /AIDS for the past 15 years. Anuradha
was a child psychologist and was pursuing PhD hospital till 16-5-1998. She was shifted to
Beach Candy Hospital, Mumbai on 17-5-1998 by an air ambulance and died on 28-5-1998
She suffered from Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis, which is a rare band deadly disease. The
incidence of TEN has been reported at 1 to 1.3 per million per year. The female male ratio is
3:2. TEN account for nearly 1 percent of drug reaction that require hospitalization. TEN has a
mortality rate of 25 to 70 %.
The complaint was initially dismissed by National Commission on the ground of that the
infection DPO Medrol prescribed by Dr. Mukherjee was not of such excessive dose. Dr. Kunal
Saha filled a case in the Supreme Court which held that the DPO Medrol is a long acting steroid
and not made for acute diseases like TEN and cannot be used twice a day. Supreme Court held
that there was medical negligence and remitted back to the National Commission only for the
purpose of determination of quantum of compensation. Beach Candy Hospital was also implied
because Anuradha was treated for 12 days and died in the hospital. The case was filed against
the Beach Candy Hospital complaining compensation of Rupees 25.30 crores which was
dismissed as withdrawn on 25-7-2003.
In Kusum Sharma ors V. Batra Hospital and Medical Research13 case held that the law of
negligence has to be applied according to facts and circumstances individual case. No one can
ignore that medicine is an involving science, and there is no precise outcome of effect for every
person. The operations involve certain calculated risk which cannot be denied because of
complication in the operation if some risk is done, the doctor cannot be held liable for
negligence as the patient himself has consented to the risk involved in the operation.
The respondant did what was necessary in order to improve the appellant’s condition. He gave
Amikacin to the appellant in order to improve his condition. But, upon hearing that the
Appellant had slight tinnitus, the Respondant adviced not to continue Amikacin and also made
necessary changes in the discharge card.
In another case Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab14, the supreme court held that in some case
of medical profession the doctors are equipped in certain situation where they have to make
12
IV (2011) CPJ 414 (NC)
13
2010 3 S.C.C. 480
14
A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3180
Page 17 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

choice between a devil and the deep sea, sometimes in certain situation there must be greater
risk in the operation but higher chances of success and in another move there would be lesser
risk but higher chances of failure. So the decision, that which course would be follow will
depend on facts and circumstances of case.
In Moni v. State Of Kerala15, “in the case of medical man, negligence means failure to act by
the standards reasonably competent medical man at the time. There may be one or more
perfectly proper standards, and if he confirms to one of these proper standards, then he is not
negligent.”
He did what was necessary and could not be he held liable for being negligent. The appellant on
having slight tinnitus got advice from the respondant to stop taking Amikacin didn’t adhere to
the advice and continued to take Amikacin, Further, on he did not complain about it further and
was conversing with the doctors normally. And thus the doctor was not negligent and cannot be
held liable to pay compensation.

15
2006 (2) KLT 313
Page 18 of 19
 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the respondent humbly submit that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to judge and declare
that:

1. Set the Respondent free from the liability to pay compensation incurred by the
Appellant.
2. Pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of justice, equity
and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed,

(Counsel on behalf of Respondent)

Page 19 of 19