NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2024

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPEAL NO: __________ UNDER SECTION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE & HIS COMPANION JUDGES

IN THE MATTER OF

1. DR. RACHEL GREEN …APPELLANT

VERSUS

1. BOARD OF HOGWARTS INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL

2. GRIFFINDOR CITY HOSPITAL
3. MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GOTHAM CITY
…DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

1|Page
 NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITES…………………………………………………………………

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………….

SUMMARY OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………

ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………………....

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………..

WRITTEN PLEADINGS …………………………………………………………………

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………

2|Page
 NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

CASES REFERRED

BOOKS, JOURNALS & REPORT

3|Page
 NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Hon’ble High Court of Maharashtra has the jurisdiction to hear this appeal under
section 96 & section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 and section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023.

4|Page
 NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Dr. Rachel Green, a renowned pulmonologist with over 15 years of service at Hogwarts
International Hospital (HIH), Gotham City, earned widespread recognition for her dedication
to patient care, especially during the UNAGI virus outbreak in September 2024. This highly
infectious virus primarily affected patients over the age of 50, leading to respiratory failure
and a high mortality rate. The healthcare system was overwhelmed, and there were no
approved medications or vaccines to treat the virus. While antibiotics helped younger
patients, they were ineffective for older individuals, leaving many in critical condition.

During this time, Dr. Green was praised for her success in treating patients at HIH, with the
Medical Association of Gotham (MAG) recognizing her contributions. However, the situation
for older patients remained dire.

In October 2024, Ms. Phoebe Buffay, Dr. Green’s close friend, was admitted to Griffindor
City Hospital (GCH) in critical condition due to the virus. After five days of unsuccessful
treatment by GCH doctors, Ms. Buffay reached out to Dr. Green for help. Feeling ethically
obligated due to their close relationship, Dr. Green began treating Ms. Buffay at GCH,
despite the exclusivity clause in her HIH contract, which barred her from working elsewhere
without permission. She believed this situation fell under the exception clause for
extraordinary circumstances.

On October 13, 2024, Dr. Green started treating Ms. Buffay and extended her help to two
other critically ill patients, Mr. Gunther and Mr. Chandler, at GCH. Later, Dr. Green’s cousin,
Mr. Joey Tribbiani, informed her about a vaccine for the UNAGI virus developed by his
company, Dunder Mifflin, though it had not yet been approved by the MAG. Desperate for a
solution, Dr. Green, after obtaining her patients’ consent, administered the vaccine to Ms.
Buffay, Mr. Chandler, and Mr. Gunther.

Initially, the patients showed signs of recovery, but on October 19, 2024, both Ms. Buffay and
Mr. Chandler died, and Mr. Gunther fell into a coma. The cause of death was listed as
cardiopulmonary arrest, potentially due to the vaccine. HIH subsequently filed a civil suit
5|Page
 NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

against Dr. Green for breach of contract. The MAG also investigated and suspended Dr.
Green’s medical license for seven years. The trial court upheld her conviction under Section
106 of the Penal Code of Narnia (BNS), citing medical negligence, despite Dr. Green’s
defense of acting in good faith during a public health emergency.

Dr. Green has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court to seek justice against her
conviction in Trial Court. She has filed a joint appeal challenging both the orders of the trial
court, i.e., order dated November 25, 2024, challenging the suspension of her medical license
and order dated November 29, 2024 challenging the order finding her guilty for breach of
contract. The hearing of which is scheduled for December 17, 2024.

6|Page
 NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

ISSUES RAISED

A. Whether or not the stance of the appeal is maintainable in the court of law?
B. Whether or not the act of Dr. Rachel Green amounts to a breach of contract under
Section 73 of the ICA read with section 39 of ICA?
C. Whether or not the Trial Court has erred in finding Dr. Rachel Green guilty of
Medical Negligence under Section 106 of BNS?
D. Whether the High Court should charge Mr. Joey Tribbiani for misrepresentation
under Section 45 of BNS read with Section 125 of BNS, for providing unsafe vaccines
to Dr. Rachel Green?

7|Page
 NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

8|Page
 NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

WRITTEN PLEADINGS

A. THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MAHARASHTRA HAS THE

JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS APPEAL.

1. THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MAHARASHTRA HAS THE

JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 READ
WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, AND
SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA,
2023.

1.1. Appellate jurisdiction to hear civil appeal & cases under section
96 & section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908.
It is most respectfully submitted that, as per section 96 of the Civil Procedure
Code an appeal can be filed against the order of the court which had original
jurisdiction to hear such case, and that such appeal may be filed in court
having the appellate jurisdiction to hear such appeal. It is well established that
right to file an appeal under Section 96 CPC is a statutory remedy and that
right to appeal is not a mere matter of procedure; but is a substantive right1.

1.2. Jurisdiction of High Court in criminal matters under section 528

of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023.
It is most respectfully submitted that, as per section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 the High courts have inherent powers to
prevent abuse of powers by lower courts and to secure the ends of justice. It is

1
N. Mohan vs R. Madhu on 21 November, 2019

9|Page
 NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

pertinent to note that the trial and conviction by the trial court in the matter
pertaining to Dr Green’s suspension of license to practice was an abuse and
violation of the due process of law, and suffers from gross irregularities which
clearly hinders the process of delivery of justice, therefore it is most
respectfully prayed that this appeal under section 528 of the BNS 2023, be
allowed and this court may take cognizance of the matter and quash the
judgement dated 25-11-2024. – CASE LAWS OF 482 CRPC
2. JOINT APPEAL IS PREFERRED TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE
PROCEEDINGS

2.1. Joint appeal is preferred to reduce multiplicity of proceedings.

It is humbly submitted that the two matters at hand arise from the same cause of
action with the same set of factual matrix and interlinked questions of law,
therefore filing a joint appeal for the same is the only viable recourse available
with the appellant in order to avoid conflicting judgements, multiplicity of
proceedings and to ensure effective proceedings. It is further respectfully
submitted that, however joint appeals don’t find a place in the CPC or CRPC it is
well established through various judgements that cases with same facts and
question of law can be clubbed in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to
avoid conflicting judgements and for the purpose of serving ends to justice2.

2.2. Technicalities should not defeat the purpose of justice, and

Judicial mind needs to be applied.
It is humbly submitted that, this appeal needs the application of judicial mind
and this appeal should not be merely dismissed based on technicalities. It is
time and again held by the hon’ble supreme court of India that procedural
defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted
to defeat a just cause3. Therefore, it has been held that as far as possible,
substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a
procedural illegality which is curable 4. It is humbly submitted before this
hon’ble court that the core issues of this appeal needs to be addressed
2
S.C. Jain vs Bindeshwari Devi (1997)
3
Singapore Airlines Cargo Pvt Ltd vs M/S. Hcl Info Systems Ltd on 19 June, 2017
4
Union Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar reported in AIR 1997 SC Page No3

10 | P a g e
 NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

irrespective of the technicalities. It is respectfully submitted that, no pedantic

approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities 5. It
is pertinent to note that the appeal has been accepted by the registrar, and
therefore the stage of scrutinizing procedural irregularities has passed,
therefore it is humbly submitted that this joint appeal may kindly be allowed.
It is further submitted that the due process of law has been followed while
filing this appeal and if at all there is any technical or procedural issues then
such issues do not hinder with the factual matrix or the question of law, and
therefore may be excused for the purpose of justice.

B. DR. RACHEL GREEN’S ACT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A BREACH OF

CONTRACT UNDER SECTION 73 READ WITH SECTION 39 OF THE INDIAN
CONTRACT ACT 1872.

1. THE SERVICES RENDERED BY DR GREEN TO THE PATIENTS

ADMITTED IN GCH WAS NOT OF BUSINESS NATURE.

1.1. The services rendered by Dr. Green was humanitarian in nature and no
business transaction is involved.

5
Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by LRs., vs. Bishun Narain Inter College [AIR 1987 SC 1242]:

11 | P a g e
 NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

C. THE TRIAL COURT HAS ERRED IN FINDING DR. RACHEL GREEN

GUILTY OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023.

D. THE HIGH COURT SHOULD CHARGE MR. JOEY TRIBBIANI FOR

MISREPRESENTATION UNDER SECTION 45 READ WITH SECTION 125 OF
THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA FOR PROVIDING UNSAFE VACCINE
TO DR. GREEN.

12 | P a g e
 NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW’S INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY AND HUMBLY PRAYED
THAT THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MAHARASHTRA MAY BE PLEASED TO

And pass any order or direction that this hon’ble council may deem fit in the interests
of justice, equity, good conscience and in favour of the complainant

Humble Appellant,
Through Counsel

13 | P a g e