Case for moot court competition.
Naim Vakil
(Querist) 26 August 2018
This query is : Resolved
Respected Experts,
I am a LLB Student third year, my college has announced a Moot court competition can you please help me in making arguments on behalf of the respondents (Mahesh Patel) facts of the case are as under.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF XXX AT XXXX
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO XYZ OF 2013
1. Dr Vyomesh Mishra
2. Dr Kuldeep Singh.......... (APPELLANTS)
Vs.
1. Mahesh Patel
2. State of Gujarat............. (RESPONDENTS)
APPEAL u/s 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgement and order of the sessions court passed in criminal case of ABC of 2009 passed on November 10,2013.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Mr Mahesh Patel, original complainant is a government servant havin upper middle class background. he was having a wife Madhvi, the only son Keval in his small family. His son was studying in Standard 7 at a reputed english medium school of Ahmedabad. Keval was considered to be one of the brilliant students of the class ans was also the captain of at the school football team.
In May 2009, after having returned from the practice of football from school in vacation Keval began throwing fits and loosing consciousness at sudden intervals. Mahesh patel immediately consulted Dr Kuldeep Singh, a reputed neuro physician at the Long-Life Charitable Trust Hospital. The aforesaid hospital is started by Ahmedabad Doctors Welfare Association having sole motto to provide the best treatment to the patients at the reasonable charges. It has its reputation in the entire city for providing the best treatment.
During examination Dr Kuldeep Singh diagnosed that Keval was suffering from epilepsy, Dr Kuldeep Singh prescribed treatment involving the administration of two well known drugs for epilepsy- Zentor and Gardiol- Over a course of 8 months. Keval was also advised to discontinue for 2-3 months during his treatment. But he was keen to attend the classes at school. Due to continuous insitence of his son Mr Mahesh Patel allowed him to go to school for attending classes. The medicine prescribed to Keval did not serve its object and hence Dr Kuldeep Singh increased the dosage and frequency of his prescribed drugs. However the condition of Keval worsened and the frequency of covulsions grew rapid. As a resultant effect, Keval was constrained to proceed leave from the school from 16th August 2009.
On August 19,2009, at about 10.30 pm when keval had his evening dosage of prescribed drug Gardiol, he developed severe covulsions. He lost his consciousness and collapsed on the bed. Mahesh Patel called Dr Kuldeep Singh at his residence. Dr Singh expressed his inability to come, but advised to admit Keval to the Longlife Charitable Hospital. By following advise of Dr Singh Keval was immediately admitted at the Long Life Hospital by his parents.
At the night of 19th August 2009 Dr Vyomesh Mishra, a young doctor pursuing his internship at the hospital was on duty. He examined the patient Keval and directed him to taken to the ICU. Looking to the critical condition of the patient the hospital authorities agreed to provide treatment upon signing a consent form stating that the hospital shall not be responsible in whole or part for any further consequences if at all developed to the patient Keval during his treatment at the hospital. Desperate to save his son Keval Mr Mahesh Patel was constrained to sign the aforesaid consent from the hospital.
Before the complainant Mr Mahesh Patel could appraise Dr Vyomesh Mishra about the previous case history of Keval and the treatement provided to him, Dr Vyomesh Mishra administered the sedative called Epitaphenol, a sedative given in case of severe epileptic attack. After the application of the aforesaid medicine, Mahesh Patel saw his so finding difficult to breath and was gasping of breath. Soon he lost his consciousness. Mahesh Patel desperately called Dr Vyomesh Mishra to examine his son. Dr mishra explained to him that it was not unconsciousness, but sleep due to sedative medicine. Being dissatisfied with the explanation Mahesh Patel called Dr Kuldeep Singh at his residence at 3:30 am on 20th August 2009 and requested him to come to the hospital to examine his son. But Dr Kuldeep Singh refused and showed his inability.
At 6:00 am on 20th August 2009, Keval expired in the Hospital. he autopsy revealed myocardial infraction as the cause of death. This was a resultant effect of adverse reaction of Epitaphenol drug with Gardial, which was prescribed by Dr Kuldeep Singh.
On 23rd August 2009, Mr Mahesh Patel LOgged an FIR in Crime Register No ii/XXX/2009 at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad against both the present appellants for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302,304 and 304A of IPC. The Charge Sheet was filed after the Investigation by the Officer in charge at Navrangpura Police Station and the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions court for trial after framing the charges u/s 302,304 and 304A of the IPC.
The Learned Sessions Judge by his judgement and order found both the accused persons guilty for having committed offences punishable under section 304 part ii of the IPC and punished them with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs 2 lacs each. Being aggrieved by the judgement and order, the accused persons have preffered appeal under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court of Gujarat. The appeal is admitted.
Simultaneously, Mr Mahesh Patel being father of deceased preferred appeal u/s 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing Criminal Appeal No PQR/2007 before the High Court of Gujarat seeking compensation from the above accused persons who are responsible for the unnatural death of his son. the above appeal is also admitted and Hon'ble High Court passed an order to hear both the above appelas together at the final hearing.
now both the appeals have come up for final hearings.
Thank You for reading and i hope you will help me with this matter.
Regards.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 26 August 2018
Seek guidance of your tutors, this platform is not meant for academic purpose but to oblige needy litigants.
NANDKUMAR B SAWANT
(Expert) 26 August 2018
1.f.i.r.complaint was filed at police station.2.24 hrs f.i.r.sent to nearest jmfc court..then after chargesheet was filed case was comited to sessions as offences under sec 302 ,304 and 304 a of I.P.C.are triable by sessions .then accused convicted by sessions court.2.appeals filed to high court by appeallent accused under sec.374 of crpc..3.on the basis of given facts it may be noted that Doctors advise to take reat for 2 to 3 months and not to attend school was ignored and not followed by deceased and complainant resulting in sickness.It may be noted that Doctors are geting forms filled from all patients and they try to save life of patients and accused can produce said form with signature of complainant which can be defence of appellent accused. Sec.302,304 and 304 a of ipc are not applicable as there is no motive no intention and no knowledge of any alleged offence..and hence appellent accused deserves to be acquited..4.the both doctors appellents can take defence based on facts in chargesheet..and delay in filing f.i.r.and bases on medical evidence...and pray for allowing appeal and for acquital..kindly note that these are points for defence and grounds for appeal just for use of LL.B students for use in moot court purpose only.good luck.Nandkumar B.Sawant.M.Com.LL.B.Advocate High Court.e.mail.advocatesawantnb@yahoo.com
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 26 August 2018
It is very good to participate or watch Moot Court, a must for all Law students, but alas! this forum is not for such academic purpose. As rightly advised by Dr.J.C.Vaishta, hang on to your teacher for help.
