Dr. Riddhi Vs DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI
APPEALATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION
APPEAL NO. ---- OF -----
Dr. Ridhi … Petitioner
Versus
Delhi . . . Respondent
Name: Ayushi Sharma
Roll No: 91
Subject: Moot Court Practical Training - IV
College: Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Law, Nerul, Navi –Mumbai.

INDEX
Sr. Particulars Page Nos.

No.
1. Synopsis 1 – 2 (E.g.)
2. Writ Petition/Affidavit in Reply of Respondent/s*
3. Vakalatnama

Versus
SYNOPSIS
Sr. Dates Particulars

No.
1. 25 th
Dr. Ridhi wrote a detailed application
March
mentioning the medical history and current
2019
scenario of Mrs. Pathak’s health condition on
25 th March 2019 to Elixir Labs in order to
ask for the drug but her application got
rejected by the Managing Director of Elixir
Labs, Mr. Naveen Mathur, stating that the
drug hasn't been completely approved by Food
and Drug Administration, it is yet being
experimented.
2. 5th May Mrs. Pathak, after few days of discharge on 5th May
2019 2019 contacted Dr. Ridhi to thank her for giving
her a new life where she was not just meaninglessly
existing
3. 7 th May 2019 the news of Mrs. Pathak’s death came as a
2019 shock in the hospital which immediately raised
alleging questions. The postmortem reports of Mrs.
Pathak confirmed died of Cardiopulmonary arrest, it
was registered as a case of “sudden
4. 15 th May The hospital held a meeting of Hospital
2019 Administration on 15 th May 2019 against the
action of Dr. Ridhi consisting of 7 jury members
which included 6 Senior Doctors and Mr. Mathur
and asked her to explain her actions.
5. 25th May The license of Dr. Ridhi was suspended by the
2019 Medical Council of India for 7 years on 25th May
2019 believing that she did commit medical
negligence due to which a patient lost her life.
6. 26 th The Trial Court on 26 th December 2019 convicted
December Dr. Ridhi under section 304A IPC read with
2019 Section 90 and Section 337 of IPC and approved
the suspension of her licence.
7.
ISSUES RAISED:
1. Whether or not the stance of the appeal is maintainable in court of law?
2.Whether or not the act of Dr. Ridhi Sharma amounts to negligence on her
part?
3.Whether or not the Trial Court has erred in finding Dr. Ridhi Sharma guilty
of Medic al Negligence under
Authorities relied upon by the Petitioner
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Indian Contract Act, 1872
• Indian Evidence Act,
Judgements relied upon by the Petitioner/s/ Respondent/s:
1.Dr. A K Gupta And Others vs State of UP

2. Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab
Dr. Ridhi … Petitioner/s
Versus
Delhi . . . Respondent/s
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF

PETITIONER(S) ABOVE NAMED
(Petitioner side)
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. . Whether or not the stance of the appeal is maintainable in court of law?
YES
2. 2.Whether or not the act of Dr. Ridhi Sharma amounts to negligence on

her part?
No,a) duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, (b) +2duty of
care in deciding what treatment to give, and (c) duty of care in the
administration of that treatment.
A breach of any of the above duties may give a cause of action for
negligence and the patient may on that basis recover damages from his
doctor.
In the aforementioned case, the apex court interalia observed that negligence
has many manifestations – it may be active negligence, collateral negligence,
comparative negligence, concurrent negligence, continued negligence,
criminal negligence, gross negligence, hazardous negligence, active and
passive negligence, willful or reckless negligence, or negligence per se.
Black's Law Dictionary defines negligence per se as “conduct, whether of

action or omission, which may be declared and treated as negligence without
any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circumstances, either
because it is in violation of statute or valid Municipal ordinance or because it
is so palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that it can be said
without hesitation or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of
it. As a general rule, the violation of a public duty, enjoined by law for the
protection of person or property, so constitutes.”
• 3. Whether or not the Trial Court has erred in finding Dr. Ridhi Sharma guilty of
Medic al Negligence under Section 304A of IPC?
Yes, The Trial Court bhas erred in finding Dr. Ridhi Sharma guilty of Medical
Negligence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code. "Carelessness amounting to the
culpable breach of a duty; failure to do something that a reasonable man would do, or
doing something that a reasonable man would not do. In cases of professional
negligence , involving some one with a special skill of an average member of his
profession."
PRAYERS :
1. We request Hon'ble High Court to give relief to Dr. Ridhi Sharma by cancelling
orders given by Trial Court.
2. We request Hon'ble High Court to struck down Section 304A, 337, 90 of IPC applied
by Trail Court.
3. We request Court to give compensation to Dr. Ridhi by the Hospital.
4. To be please allow the plaintiff to amend the present plaint if needed anytime.
5. Any other order may be passed in favour of the plaintiff as the Hon'ble Court deems
fit and proper.
6. To be please allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint if needed anytime.
Advocate for Petitioner Petitioner

VERIFICATION
I, XYZ, aged adult, Indian Inhabitant, residing address , do hereby state that
whatever is stated in foregoing Para Nos. 1 to – Flat no. 101, New Estate R.K
Puram, Delhi of the Petition/ Affidavit in Reply is true to my own knowledge
and belief.
Solemlenly declared at Delhi.
Dated day of April, 2019 )
Advocate for Petitioner Petitioner

Versus
To,
Officer,
Delhi High Court.
VAKAL ATNAMA
I/We, XYZ Petitioner abovenamed do appoint Ms. Ayushi Sharma,

Advocate to act, appear and plead on my behalf in the above Writ Petition/
Arbitration Petition.
In witness whereof I have set and subscribed my hands to this writing at
Delhi.
Dated this day of April, 2019
Accepted
Ms. Ayushi Sharma Petitioner

Advocate for Petitioner
Roll No. 91
Course BLSLLB SEM X
Subject Practical Training 4
College Name Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI
Versus
APPEAL NO.
Dated this day of April, 2019
AYUSHI SHARMA
Advocate for Petitioner
Roll No. 91
BLS LLB SEM X
MOOT COURT PRACTICAL TRAINING IV
Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law, Nerul, Navi Mumbai

Dr. Riddhi Vs DELHI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dr. Riddhi Vs DELHI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dr. Riddhi Vs DELHI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI

APPEAL NO. ---- OF -----

Dr. Ridhi … Petitioner

Name: Ayushi Sharma

Subject: Moot Court Practical Training - IV

College: Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Law, Nerul, Navi –Mumbai.

Sr. Particulars Page Nos.

APPEAL NO. ---- OF -----

Sr. Dates Particulars

Authorities relied upon by the Petitioner

• Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Indian Contract Act, 1872

• Indian Evidence Act,

Judgements relied upon by the Petitioner/s/ Respondent/s:

1.Dr. A K Gupta And Others vs State of UP

APPEAL NO. ---- OF -----

Dr. Ridhi … Petitioner/s

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

2. 2.Whether or not the act of Dr. Ridhi Sharma amounts to negligence on

Black's Law Dictionary defines negligence per se as “conduct, whether of

3. We request Court to give compensation to Dr. Ridhi by the Hospital.

Advocate for Petitioner Petitioner

Solemlenly declared at Delhi.

Dated day of April, 2019 )

Advocate for Petitioner Petitioner

APPEAL NO. ---- OF -----

Dr. Ridhi … Petitioner

I/We, XYZ Petitioner abovenamed do appoint Ms. Ayushi Sharma,

Ms. Ayushi Sharma Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT

APPEAL NO. ---- OF -----

Dr. Ridhi … Petitioner

Dated this day of April, 2019

You might also like