TEAM CODE: TC-XXXVI

4TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP No. 254/2020)

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

VIKRANT MATHUR…………………………………………PETITIONER

VERSUS

QUICK HEAL HOSPITAL & ORS………..………………..RESPONDENT

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of abbreviations…………………………………………….3
Index of authorities……………………………………………...4
Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………..6
Statement of facts……………………………………………….7
Statement of Issues…………………………………………….10
Statement of Argument………………………………………...11
Argument Advanced……………………………………………12
Prayer…………………………………………………………...20

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

2|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

& And
Vol. Volume
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
FIR First Information
Report
Cri. Criminal
Hon’ble Honorable
No. Number
SC Supreme Court
SSC Supreme Court
Cases
SCR Supreme Court
Reports
Supp Supplementary
UOI Union of India
V. Versus
CPC Civil Procedure
Code
Sec Section
Co. Company
Ltd. Limited
Rs. Rupees
www World Wide Web
(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

3|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF BOOKS
1. G.P. Singh, (Rev.), Ratanlal &Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts (24th ed.2004).
2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, Lexis Nexis, (26th ed., 2013)
3. Laxminath and M. Sridhar, Ramaswamy Iyer’s The Law of Torts, (10th ed., 2007).
4. W.V.H. Rogers, Winfield &Jolowicz on Tort 17th ed., 2006).
5. R.F.V. Heuston and R.A. Buckley, Salmond & Heuston on the Law of Torts (20th ed.,1992).

STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India, 1950.
2. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. The Indian Contracts Act, 1872.

LIST OF WEBSITES
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.lexisnexis
3. www.westlawindia.com
4. www.ssconline.com

LIST OF CASES

1. Indian Medical Association v. V P Shantha AIR (1996) SC 550 (1995) 6 SCC 651.
2. Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359.
3. Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and manufacturing Co. Ltd.,
AIR 1962 SC 1314.
4. C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298.
5. Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214.
6. Grill v. General Iron Screw Collier Co. Wills, (1866) LR 1 CP 600 at 612.
7. Thomas v. Ouatermaine, (1887) 18 QBD 685.
8. Donoghue v. Stevenson, (1932) AC 562.
(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

4|Page
9. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1.
10. Bolam v. Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee, (1957) 1 WLR 582.
11. Harjol Ahtuwalia’s v. Spring Meadows Hospital (1997) 5 CTJ 34 NC.
12. Savita Garg v. National Heart Institute, (2004) 8 SCC 56.
13. Yemwns v. Noakes, (1881) 6 QBD 530.

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction to hear and decide upon the appeal
made by the appellant by the virtue of the Special Leave Petition as stated in Article 136 of The
Constitution of India under the Civil Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.

Article 136 in The Constitution of India 1949:

Article 136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

6|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

1. The end of the spouse of the appellant has brought about the legitimate procedures being
started by the litigant on a conviction that the reason for her passing was clinical carelessness.

2. Late Mrs. Neha was the spouse of appealing party who had a convoluted clinical history.
Prior she was on diabetic alarm, and as of late determined to have esophageal malignancy and
hypertension. She was under the supervision of Dr. Shalabh Saxena.

3. Neha accepting her medicines as endorsed after supper. From that point, at around 12 PM,
she grumbled to Vikrant of extreme nervousness and suffocation. Since Dr. Shalabh knew
about Neha's medical history. Vikram reached Dr. Shalabh on courier application. Dr. Shalabh
was abroad for 15 days, yet he recommended paracetamol and encouraged to go for assessment.
Subsequent to taking the recommended medication of Doctor Shalabh, Neha felt relaxed.

4. Next morning, she was conceded in a private clinic specifically Quick Heal Super Specialty
Hospital (Respondent No. 1) There she was gone to by Doctor Sivakant Jhunjhunwala
(Respondent No. 2). She was determined to have chills and fever and nasal feed tube was
embedded around the same time by Dr. Anurag (Respondent No. 3) for certain associated tests
endorsed.

FACTS OF THE CASE

5. One of the tests was a Complete Blood Count Report, which found that the WBC check high,
characteristic of disease. She had likewise having fever of 102 degrees Fahrenheit, and her
clinical treatment started with intravenous organization of infusion Magnex of 1.5 mg.
According to the clinical reports, the cannula utilized for intravenous treatment quit working
and (Respondent No.3) endorsed a further anti-toxin tablet, Polypod (Cefpodoxime) to be
orally managed through nasal cylinder.

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT)

7|Page
6. The patient was then released. At this stage additionally her WBC tally was high. She was
endorsed to proceed with her medicine for 15 days post release, which according to Vikrant
was controlled to her.

7. The spouse fell and was admitted to a close by a General Hospital. Specialist Vincent Mattu
managed Neha. He told that the excess of anti-toxin tablet, Polypod (Cefpodoxime), was the
explanation of Neha's deadly imploding. She was not analyzed appropriately in the past
emergency clinic. There she was put in a coma ventilation framework, her wellbeing proceeded
to crumble and she at last capitulated to her disease.

8. After the downfall of his better half the current litigant subsequent to examining for certain
specialists, recorded a protest with the Medical Council of India. He at that point moved toward
the State Consumer Commission by arguing the emergency clinic were obligated for clinical
carelessness.

CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES

9.The appealing party contended that the way wherein clinical therapy was managed to Neha
and her resulting release from the Quick Heal Hospital was improper and ineffectual
prescription; the untimely release of the expired notwithstanding her condition justifying
therapy in the ICU; and that the oral organization of Polypod anti-microbial, in spite of her
basic condition, which really required intravenous organization of the medication shows net
clinical carelessness on piece of Hospital specialists.

10. The respondents were of the view that when the patient was released, she was afebrile, her
vitals were typical and she was very much hydrated, with no disease in her chest or urinary
parcel. She was expressed to be clinically steady and that is the reason she was so released with
legitimate clinical solutions for the following 15 days.

DECISION OF STATE AND NATIONAL CONSUMER FORUM

11. The State Commission ruled for the appealing party and coordinated a pay of Rs.15 lakh
and expenses of Rs.51,000/ - to be paid to spouse of the perished. Distressed by the
(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT)

8|Page
said request of the State Commission, the respondents favored an allure before the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which absolved the respondents from
all ascriptions of Medical Negligence.

THE PRESENT PETITION

12. Oppressed by the choice of NCDRC the current litigant favored an allure in the Supreme
Court. Leave has been conceded. This is the way the issue precedes this Hon'ble Court.

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

9|Page
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE-1: WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

ISSUE-2: WHETHER GROSS MEDDICAL NEGLIGENCE EXISTED ON THE PART

OF THE RESPONDENTS

ISSUE-3: WHETHER THE HOSPITAL IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

10 | P a g e
 STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

It is unassumingly submitted before the Hon'ble SC that, the Special Leave Petition recorded
by the solicitor, Mr. Vikrant is viable, as the issue includes a generous inquiry of law of overall
population significance. The self-assertive and hurried judgment of the NCDRC (National
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission) absolving the respondents from all attributions of
clinical carelessness has brought about unsuccessful labor of equity and if the SC doesn't
intercede, it will bring about gross treachery. The Hon'ble SC ought to hence, applying its wide
locale presented under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India utilize remedial measures to address
some unacceptable done by the choice of the NCDRC.

ISSUE 2. WHETHER GROSS MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE EXISTED ON THE PART

OF THE RESPONDENTS

It is fought that the Respondents are careless as there were unseemly and ineffectual drug,
Premature release of the expired notwithstanding her condition justifying treatment in the ICU
and Oral organization of Polypod anti-microbial, regardless of her basic condition, which really
required intravenous organization of the medication. The gathering might want to avow that
indeed, the Respondents are careless to Vikrant.

ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE HOSPITAL IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE

It is submissively presented that the Doctors are the representative of the Hospital and the work
done by them were finished throughout business. The Hospital authority is at risk for the
carelessness of expert men utilized by the authority under agreement of administration just as
agreement for administration. The work done by the Doctors in the limit of a representative of
the Hospital goes under the domain of "Administration" under S. 2(o) 1 of The Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.

1
Indian Medical Association v. V P Shantha AIR (1996) SC 550 (1950) 6 SCC 651

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

11 | P a g e
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.

It is unassumingly submitted before the Hon'ble SC that, the Special Leave Petition documented
by the candidate, Mr. Vikrant is viable, as the issue includes a generous inquiry of law of overall
population significance. The self-assertive and rushed judgment of the NCDRC (National
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission) excusing the respondents from all ascriptions of
clinical carelessness has brought about unnatural birth cycle of equity and if the SC doesn't
mediate, it will bring about gross shamefulness. The Hon'ble SC ought to accordingly, applying
its wide ward gave under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India utilize remedial measures to
address some unacceptable done by the choice of the NCDRC.

It is unassumingly submitted under the watchful eye of the Hon'ble Court that the purview
presented under Art. 136 on the SC are remedial one 2 and not a prohibitive one and can be
summoned when an issue of law of overall population significance emerges, 3 by documenting
Special Leave Petition. It is very much settled that wrongdoing should not be permitted to be
executed and disappointment by the SC to meddle with the equivalent would add up to
permitting the illicitness to be propagated, subsequently an obligation is urged upon the SC to
practice its force by fixing the lawlessness in the decisions.

Workmanship. 136 give residuary capacity to the SC to do equity where the court is fulfilled
that unfairness has been finished. 4 Illicitness ought not be permitted to be executed only for
maintaining details. 5

It is unassumingly presented that there was a grave misstep with respect to the Doctors in the
organization of medication overlooking an individual's Right to Life allowed under Art. 21 of
The Constitution of India. Further the choice of NCDRC which excused the respondents from

2
Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359.
3
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and manufacturing Co. Ltd, AIR (1962) SC 1314
4
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298
5
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214.

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

12 | P a g e
all ascriptions of clinical carelessness requires a better mediation and it additionally required
than be examined in the light of prior occasions and the judgment of the State Forum.
As per Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 'purchaser' signifies any individual
who (I) Buys any products for a thought, which has been paid or guaranteed or mostly paid and
part of the way guaranteed. (ii) Hires or profits any administrations for a thought, which has
been paid or guaranteed or somewhat paid and halfway guaranteed.

It additionally incorporates (a) Beneficiary of administrations who has profited the

administrations with endorsement of the individual who has recruited the administrations (b)
An individual who has employed or benefited administrations under any arrangement of
conceded installment. Sec. 2(1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 says that,
"administration" signifies administration of any portrayal which is made accessible to possible
offices regarding banking, financing protection, transport, preparing, supply of electrical or
other energy, board or dwelling or both, diversion, entertainment or the providing of
information or other data, however does exclude the delivering of any assistance gratis or under
an agreement of individual help.

Sec. 9 in The Indian Contract Act, 6 in assistance of the contention gives clarification to the
relationship of shopper specialist organization via a suggested contract in light of the fact that
the supplier had occupied with treatment and the purchaser had benefited the equivalent.

For this situation, Mrs. Neha has benefited herself of the administrations given by Respondent-
1 Quick Heal Hospital, Respondent-2 Dr. Shivakant Jhunjhunwala and Respondent-3 Dr.
Anurag. In this way, there is a suggested guarantee for the installment of administrations on
piece of Mr. Neha to the Hospital. In this way, my customer is a shopper as per Sec.2(1) (d)
under COPRA, 1986. Because of the carelessness with respect to the Respondents exceptional
leave request is viable.

ISSUE 2. WHETHER GROSS MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE EXISTED ON THE PART

OF THE RESPONDENTS

6
The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

13 | P a g e
Negligence is the inability to adjust to that norm of care which it is the defendant's obligation
to adjust to, or the inability to act like a sensible or judicious individual, in conditions where
the law requires such sensible conduct.

The term carelessness is regularly utilized in the feeling of imprudent direct. Route back in
1866 in Grill v. General Iron Screw Collier Co. Wills, 7 J. alluded to carelessness as: "the
nonattendance of such consideration as it was the obligation of the respondent to utilize."

Bowen, L.J. in Thomas v. Quatermaine,8 "thoughts of carelessness and obligation are carefully
correlative and there is nothing of the sort as carelessness in the theoretical, carelessness is
basically disregard of some consideration which we are limited by law to practice towards
someone."

In Donoghue v. Stevenson, 9 Lord Macmillan concerning carelessness offered the

accompanying exemplary expression: "The law takes no insight of heedlessness in the
theoretical. It worries about remissness just where there is an obligation to be careful and where
disappointment in that obligation has caused harm. In such situation's thoughtlessness expects
the lawful nature of carelessness and involves the outcomes in law of carelessness. The cardinal
guideline of risk is that the gathering grumbled of ought to owe to the gathering whining an
obligation to be careful, and that the gathering griping ought to have the option to demonstrate
that he has endured harm in result of a break of that obligation."

In Jacob Mathew v. State of punjab10 the Court while managing carelessness subsequently saw
that: "Negligence is the break of an obligation brought about by the oversight to accomplish
something which a sensible man, guided by those contemplations which usually direct the lead
of human undertakings would do, or accomplishing something which a judicious and sensible
man would not do. Noteworthy carelessness comprises in the disregard of the utilization of
standard consideration or ability towards an individual to whom the litigant owes the obligation
of noticing customary consideration and expertise, by which disregard the offended party has

7
(1866) LR 1 CP 600 at 612.
8
(1887) 18 QBD 685.
9
(1932) AC 562.
10
(2005) 6 SCC 1.

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

14 | P a g e
endured injury to his individual or property. The definition includes three constituents of
carelessness:
(1) A legitimate obligation to practice due consideration with respect to the gathering whined
of towards the gathering grumbling of the previous' lead inside the extent of the obligation;

(2) break of the said obligation; and

(3) significant harm. Reason for activity for carelessness emerges just when harm happens; for,
harm is a fundamental element of this misdeed."

In the current case the clinic specialists had legitimate obligation to practice due consideration
and because of the break of said obligation, candidate's better half scumbled to death.

As to the expert carelessness, it is currently very much settled that an expert might be held at
risk for carelessness in the event that he was not had of the imperative expertise which he
declared to have had or, he didn't work out, with sensible fitness in the given case the ability
which he had. Carelessness with regards to the clinical calling essentially requires a treatment
with a distinction. To derive impulsiveness or carelessness with respect to an expert,
specifically a specialist, extra contemplations apply. An instance of word related carelessness
is not quite the same as one of expert carelessness.

In Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, 11 "where you get a circumstance, which
includes the utilization of some exceptional ability or capability, at that point the test with
regards to if there has been carelessness isn't the trial of the man on the highest point of a
Clapham omnibus, since he lacks this extraordinary expertise. The test is the norm of the
common gifted man practicing and proclaiming to have that extraordinary expertise. A man
need not have the most elevated master ability; it is grounded law that it is adequate in the event
that he practices the standard expertise of a customary skilled man practicing that specific art."

In the current case there were a few occasions where the Respondents neglected to practice
customary expertise that a normal equipped specialist would rehearse. At the point when the

11
(1957) 1 WLR 582.

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

15 | P a g e
perished was at first admitted to the medical clinic her WBC check was high and furthermore
when she was released the WBC tally was still high. Thusly, there was untimely release of the
expired regardless of her disturbing condition justifying treatment in the ICU.

Besides, according to the clinical reports the cannula utilized for intravenous treatment quit
working and Respondent No.3 Dr. Anurag endorsed a further anti-infection tablet, Polypod
(Cefpodoxime) to be orally directed through a nasal cylinder in spite of her exceptionally
dangerous condition. Along these lines, it is unmistakably settled that the Respondents
overlooked all the warnings which a sensible reasonable specialist in standard conditions
wouldn't disregard.
What's more, consequently the Respondents neglects to fulfill the Bolam's test accordingly
making them obligated for the grave carelessness.

With regards to the disappointment of avoiding potential risk, what must be seen is whether
those safeguards were taken which the normal experience of men has discovered to be
adequate. So likewise, the norm of care, while evaluating the training as received, is decided in
the light of information accessible at the hour of the episode, and not at the date of preliminary.
In the current case it tends to be plainly seen that the respondents have horribly neglected to
take satisfactory estimates which could be taken when the perished was conceded. As the
perished was at that point determined to have esophageal malignancy and hypertension
Respondents ought to have been additional wary and were needed to manage additional
consideration and alert. The expired was at that point been on diabetic assaults prior to being
determined to have disease and hypertension. Every one of these realities by all appearances
shows that the expired required additional consideration and alert as some other patient of such
ailment would customarily require. The Respondents definitely neglected to observe these
medical issues of the expired because of which her condition crumbled severely and in the end
she scumbled to death.

Harjol Ahluwalia's v. Spring Meadows Hospital, 12 "tops in the rundown of such situations
where the court has exhibited in unequivocal way that the measures for release of expert
obligation isn't kept to just practicing sensible consideration and expertise in the territory of

12
(1997) 5 CTJ 34 NC.

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

16 | P a g e
expert guidance and treatment however it stretches out to complete obligation covering all the
manners by which a specialist is called upon to practice his ability and judgment in treating a
patient.

In Savita Garg v. Public Heart Institute, 13 it has been seen as under: "The clinics are
organizations, individuals anticipate better and proficient assistance, if the emergency clinic
neglects to release their obligations through their primary care physicians, being utilized on
occupation premise or utilized on agreement premise, it is the emergency clinic which needs to
legitimize and not impleading a specific specialist won't acquit the medical clinic of its duties."

Consequently, according to current realities of the case and states of the patient, the
Respondents were fruitless in understanding the basic state of the perished and hence fizzled
in their exhaustive obligation to treat a patient with sensible consideration and alert concerning
her previous clinical history.

A clinical professional would be subject where his lead fell beneath that of the principles of a
sensibly skillful specialist in his field. The clinical expert is relied upon to bring a sensible level
of expertise and information and should practice a sensible level of care. Neither the most
elevated nor a low level of care and skill decided in the light of the specific conditions of each
case is the thing that the law requires.

Respondent 2 Dr. Sivakant, who was required to bring a sensible level of expertise, information
and care, in light of his evaluation of the patient, recommended oral organization of the anti-
microbial. Specialist Vincent Mattu who managed the expired told that the excess of anti-
microbial tablet. Polypod (Cefpodoxime), was the explanation of perished's deadly falling.
What's more, further she was not analyzed appropriately in the past emergency clinic.
Respondent 2 Dr. Sivakant, rather than re-cannulating the patient, coordinated oral organization
of anti-toxin Polyplod. This was an example of carelessness.

He considered this and endorsed oral Cepodoxine (Polypod) without making any endeavor to
re-cannulate her around then. This recommends that Respondent 2 Dr. Sivakant, surveyed the

13
(2004) 8 SCC 56.

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

17 | P a g e
current circumstance and decided to go the oral course. This was a cognizant choice made by
him in the light of conditions he went up against. In this manner, clearly carelessness is made
that it was obligation of Respondent to go into the reasons for expanded WBC levels instead
of release her from the emergency clinic with unjustifiable scurry.

It is unassumingly battled that the emergency clinic and the specialist pitiably fizzled in their
obligations. Dr. Vincent Mattu contends that the excess experience was a clinical catastrophe
that prompted his significant other's passing. The oral organization of anti-infection Polypod,
which was neither the right anti-toxin for an insusceptible bargained tolerant (according to
blood culture report got) and untimely release from the clinic in a flimsy condition as the WBC
tally was high, showing that contamination had not been controlled. This distinctively clarifies
the careless conduct of Respondents.

ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE HOSPITAL IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE

The Supreme Court reiterated that a hospital is also vicariously responsible for the medical
negligence committed by the medical professionals employed or retained by it. As noted in a
judgment passed by a Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Indu Malhotra,

“It is well established that a hospital is vicariously liable for the acts of negligence committed
by the doctors engaged or empanelled to provide medical care.”

The Court goes on to explain,

“It is common experience that when a patient goes to a hospital, he/she goes there on account
of the reputation of the hospital, and with the hope that due and proper care will be taken by
the hospital authorities. If the hospital fails to discharge their duties through their doctors,
being employed on job basis or employed on contract basis, it is the hospital which has to
justify the acts of commission or omission on behalf of their doctors.”

It is modestly presented that the Doctors are the worker of the Hospital and the work done by
them were finished throughout business. The Hospital authority is at risk for the carelessness
of expert men utilized by the authority under agreement of administration just as agreement for
administration. The work done by the Doctors in the limit of a worker of the Hospital goes
under the domain of "Administration" under S. 2(o) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 14

14
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

18 | P a g e
Besides, when he was to offering drug to the litigant's better half he was inside of extension
and inside his course of business and thus the clinic can be held vicariously subject for his
activities. Verifiable tests revolved around discovering control between an alleged business and
a representative, in a type of expert and worker relationship.

The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v. Noakes, 15where Bramwell LJ expressed
that: "...a worker is an individual who is dependent upon the order of his lord with regards to
the way in which he will tackle his job." The control test viably forced obligation where a
business directed both what work was to be done, and how it was to be finished. This is suitably
appropriate for circumstances where exact directions are given by a business; it can
unmistakably be seen that the business is the causal connection for any damage which follows.
In the event that then again, a business doesn't decide how a demonstration ought to be done,
at that point the relationship would rather be one of boss and self-employed entity. This
differentiation was clarified by Slesser LJ: "It is grounded when in doubt of English law that a
business isn't subject for the demonstrations of his self-employed entity similarly as he is for
the demonstrations of his workers or specialists, despite the fact that these demonstrations are
done in doing the work for his advantage under the agreement. The assurance whether the real
miscreant is a worker or specialist from one perspective or a self-employed entity on the other
relies upon whether the business figures out what can anyone does, yet holds the control of the
genuine exhibition, where case the practitioner is a worker or specialist; however, in the event
that the business, while endorsing the work to be done, leaves the way of doing it to the control
of the practitioner, the last is a self-employed entity."

Subsequently it is unmistakably clear that the Doctors were worker as the way of taking care
of his job was not left to his will, this demonstrates that he was a representative of the
Respondent. Moreover, in the light of the occasions it tends to be plainly inferred that his
activities were additionally inside his course of work and he went off limits. Henceforth this
contention likewise reinforces the point that his activities can make the Hospital vicariously
obligated.
Thus, from the above expressed contentions it is plainly obvious that the Hospital can be held
vicariously obligated for the demonstrations of specialist.

15
(1881) 6 QBD 530.

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

19 | P a g e
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the realities expressed, contentions progressed, focuses raised
and the specialists referred to,

1. Hold Dr. Shivakant Jhunjhunwala, Dr. Anurag and The Quick Heal Hospital at risk
for clinical carelessness and lack of administration, and request arrangement of
remuneration to the distressed.

2. Grant compensatory harms to be paid by them for clinical carelessness.

Or

Pass whatever other request that it considers fit in light of a legitimate concern for Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience.

Also, for this, the Petitioner as in compelled by a solemn obligation, will submissively
supplicate.

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

20 | P a g e