PETITIONER TC-1

TC - 1
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
GANDHINAGAR

(Under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 of Gandhinagar)

The Complaint of 2023

Bio-Med Care Co. ;

Pillai’s Wellness Hospital &
Mr. Akshay Kumar ………………………………… Appellants

VS.
Mrs. Nandini &
Union of Gandhinagar ……………………………… Respondents

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE HON’’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF GANDHINAGAR

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1
PETITIONER TC-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATION……………………………………………………..
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………….
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………
STATEMENT OF FACT……………………………………………..
STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………..
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………….
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………..
ISSUE 1 :
Whether Mrs Nandini can be considered a Consumer as per the provisions of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and hence eligible to claim a remedy from
Bio- Med Care Co. ?
ISSUE 2 :
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Pillai’s Wellness
Hospital so as to be liable to compensate Mrs.Nandini ?
ISSUE 3 :
Whether the provisions conferring the right to appeal against an order issued by
the Commission based on the settlement in Mediation is Constitutionally valid?
ISSUE 4 :
Whether the provisions that empower the Central Consumer Protection
Authority to impose penalties on endorsers Constitutionally valid?

PRAYER …………………………………………………………….

2
PETITIONER TC-1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

3
PETITIONER TC-1

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Sr No. Title Citation
1 Tamilnadu Siddha Medical Graduates vs
Indian Medical Association on 11 February,
2011

2 Moni vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2011

3 Kusum Sharma & Ors vs Batra Hospital

&Med.Research Centre on 10 February,
2010

4 Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Sharma vs Indraprastha

Apollo Hospital on 22 April, 2015

5 Dr. K.C. Vidyarthi vs The State Of Bihar

Through The Director general of police on 5
May, 2016

6
V. N. Shrikhande Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes

7 Dr. Balram Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha Case

8 Arun kumar agarwal vs National insurance

company 2010

9 Kunal Saha Vs. AMRI (Advanced

Medical Research Institute)
10 V. Krishan Rao v Nikhil Super Speciality
Hospital 2010 –
11 Samira Kohli vs. Dr. Prabha Manchanda
and Ors
12 Indian Medical Association v. V.P.
Shantha
13 Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot
Ahluwalia
14 Smt.Savitri Devi W/O Khani LaL vs State
of UP Thru Home secy
15 Vinod Jain vs Santokba Durlabhji
Memorial Hospital & Ans

4
PETITIONER TC-1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner hereby humbly sumbmits this Memorandam before the Hon’Ble
Supreme Court of Ghandhinagarin reply to the Memorandam filed by the
Respondant invoking the jurisdiction of the Hon’Ble Court under Article 136
of the Constitution of Ghandhinagar

5
PETITIONER TC-1

STATEMENT OF FACT

1) Union of Ghandhinagar
 Union of ghandhinagar is a South Asian Country, Comprising of 28
States.
 It Boasts has a Written Constitution and a federal democratic
pattern of government.
 The total population of Ghandhinagar is more than 1.4 billion it
holds the distinction of being the world’s most populous country.
 Geographically is the ‘Seventh largest’ country in the world.
 Approximately 17.5% of the world’s total population resides of
Ghandhinagar.
 The country has a glorious tradition of public health, and there
existed a Ministry of the Health Care at the Centre from 1947.

2) Healthcare Ghandhinagar
 Health falls under the purview of state government due to the
constitution.
 Various state government have taken several measures to ensure
basic healthcare facilities in their citizens.
 Over time Private Players have actively participated in the
healthcare sector.
 The initiatives of the Central Government, State Government and
Private Players,the health sector in Ghandhinagar has made
enormous strides over the past decades.
 Notable Achievements includes :
a) Increased Life exectancy ( Surpassing 70 Years)
b) Reduced infant mortaily rates.
c) Controlled communicable diseases.
d) Effective healthcare response during the Covid-19
Pandemic, resulting in lower hardships and death rates for
Covid-19 Pantients.

6
PETITIONER TC-1

3) Medical Tourism in Ghandhinagar

 Medical Tourism has flourished Union of Ghandhinagar as a
‘Healing Center of the World’.
 Key factors contributing to this status.
i. International Quality Standards : Ghandhinagar health
services adhere to rigarious international standards.
ii. Cutting – edge technologies : The country offers advanced
medical expertise and the lastest technologies.
iii. Cost – effectiveness : Despite high-quality care,
Ghandhinagar provides healthcare services at a low cost.
iv. Skilled professional : Many doctors are trained in European
and other developed countries.
v. Abdant trained nurses : A robust nursing workface ensures
patient care.

In Summary,Ghandhinagar healthcare system has evolved significantly, making

it a soughtafter for medical treatement and care. The case involving Bio-Med
Care Co. and Mrs. Nandini raises intriguing questions about product liability
and endorsers responsibilities. In the case of Mr. Tatsat and Mrs. Nandini, a
services of event unfolded after Mrs. Nandini underwent Liposuction surgery at
Pillai’s wellness Hospital. Let’s break down the details:

1) Background :
 Mrs. Nandini sought help from Dr.Shivaraj , a cosmetic surgeon at
Pillai’s wellness Hospital, to Address excess fat in her arms.
 Dr. Shivaraj recommended liposuction surgery for fat removal.
 The surgery took place on 4 June,2022.

2) Complications :
 On 6 June,2022 Mrs. Nandini began experiencing pain in her right
hand.
 A noticeable color change was also observed.
 Necrosis an infection resulting from non-sterile conditions during
surgery was identified as the cause of her hand pain.

7
PETITIONER TC-1

3) Investigation :
 Pillai’s wellness Hospital formed a medical team to investigate the
incident.
 Dr. Shivaraj and his team wera found to have performed the
surgery with care, using high-quality surgical instruments.
 The Hospital’s sterilization process relied on equipment supplied
by Bio-Med Care Co.
 Technicians discovered a manufacturing defect in the sterilization
equipment specifically used to liposuction instruments.

In the legal saga involving Bio-Med Care Co., Pillai’s Wellness Hospital, and
Mrs. Nandini, a series of events unfolded, each with its own twists and turns.
Let’s brak down the key points:

1. Bio-Med Care Co. Vs Mrs. Nandini

 Mrs . Nandini, after undergoing liposuction surgery, suffered
complications due to poor sterilization of surgical instruments.
 Bio-Med Care Co. contested that Mrs. Nandini was not a
consumer under the consumer protection Act, 2019, and being a
foregin citizen, she wasn’t eligible for remedies.
 The District Commission disagreed, awarding Rs. 15 lakhs as
compenstation .
 Appeals at the State and National Commissions upheld the
District Commission’s decision.
 Bio-Med Care Co. appealed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2. Pillai’s Wellness Hospital Vs Mrs. Nandini

8
PETITIONER TC-1

 Mrs. Nandini experienced increasing pain in her hand post-

surgery.
 The hospital denied free treatment,asserting no negligance on the
part of Dr. Shivaraj and his team.
 The actual performing doctor was not included as a party in the
complaint.
 Both parties agreed to mediation, and the District Commission
facilitated settlement.
 However, Mrs. Nandini later appealed to the State Commission.
 The State Commission found the hospital liable for service
deficiency, ordering Rs. 5 Lakhs in compensation.
 Pillai’s Wellness Hospital appealed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3. Third Complaint
 The Central Consumer Protection Authroity Received a complaint
against the claims made in Pillai’s Wellness Hospital’s hoardings
placed across different locations.

These legal battles underscore the complexities of healthcare liability, consumer

protection, and the pursuit of justice.

 Despite the equipment functioning properly,the defect hindered

effective sterilization.

4. Legal Proceeding
 Pillai’s Wellness Hospital sought legal advice.
 It was determined that the hospital did not fall under the definition
of a “Consumer’’ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
 Consequently, the hospital decided to pursue legal action against
Bio-Med Care Co. under other relevant laws.

5. Mrs. Nandini’s Condition

 Mrs. Nandini hand pain worsened overtime.

9
PETITIONER TC-1

 She requested free treatment from Pillai’s Wellness Hospital, but

her requested was denied.
 Mr. Steve eventually transferred Mrs. Nandini to another reputable
hospital for further care.

This case highlights the critical importance of proper sterilization procedures

and the potential consequences when defects occur.

In this case Mr. Akshay Kumar found himself embroiled in a legal tussle
related to consumer protection. Let’s break down the events:
I. Complaint and Penalty:
 A third complaint was filed with the Central Consumer
Protection Authority (CCPA) against the claims made in the
hoarding of Pillai’s Wellness Hospital placed in different parts
of the state of Dhrupadam.
 After an appropriate investigation and proceedings, the
CCPA imposed a penalty of Rs 50,000 on Mr. Akshay Kumar
for endorsing the advertising.

II. Appeal and National Commission :

 Undeterred by the penalty, Mr. Akshay Kumar appealed the
decision.
 The National Commission reviewed the case and reaffirmed
the order issued by the CCPA.

III. Supreme Court Challenge :

 Still dissatisfied, Mr. Akshay Kumar took the matter to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
 His appeal challenges the constitutional validity of the relevant
provision that empowers the CCPA to impose penalties on
endorsers.

10
PETITIONER TC-1

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 plays a crucial role in safeguarding

consumer rights and ensuring transparency in the marketplace. The CCPA, as
part of this Act, aims to prevent unfair trade practices, misleading marketing,
and false claims. It also provides mechanisms for consumers to seek
redressal and holds business accountable for their actions. It remains to be
seen how the Supreme Court will address the constitutional validity issue raised
by Mr. Akshay Kumar. Legal battles like these shape the landscape of
consumer protection and influence the rights and responsibilities of both
consumers and service providers.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

11
PETITIONER TC-1

ISSUE 1 :
Whether Mrs Nandini can be considered a Consumer as per the provisions of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and hence eligible to claim a remedy from
Bio- Med Care Co. ?
ISSUE 2 :
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Pillai’s Wellness
Hospital so as to be liable to compensate Mrs.Nandini ?
ISSUE 3 :
Whether the provisions conferring the right to appeal against an order issued by
the Commission based on the settlement in Mediation is Constitutionally valid?
ISSUE 4 :
Whether the provisions that empower the Central Consumer Protection
Authority to impose penalties on endorsers Constitutionally valid?

SUMMARY OF STATEMENT

12
PETITIONER TC-1

ISSUE 1 :
 No, Mrs. Nandini can not be considered a consumer as per the provision
of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.
 The salary that is paid by the hospital administration to the employee
medical officer cannot be regarded as payment made on behalf of the
person availing of the service or for his benefit so as to make the
person availing the service a “consumer” under Section 2(1) in
respect of the service rendered to him.” The Supreme Court has
reiterated that service rendered by medical officers on behalf of a
Hospital, free of cost, would not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)
(o) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.

 Hence she can not eligible to claim a remedy from Bio-med Care Co.
because she took services from the Pillai’s Wellness Hospital for her
Liposuction Surgery, which was completed on 6th June 2022.

ISSUE 2:
There is no deficiency in service on the part of pillai’s Wellness Hospital
so as not to be liable to compensate Mrs. Nandini.

 The hospital in their reply “There was no negaligence on the part

of the doctor and his team while providing surgery related
treatments.
 The salary that is paid by the hospital adminstration to the
employee medical officer cannot be regarded as payment made
on behalf of the person availing of the service or for his benefit
so as to make the person availing the service a “ Consumer”
under section 2(1)(d) in respect of the service rendered to him.’’
The supreme Court has reiterated that service rendered by
medical officers on behalf of a Hospital, free of cost, would not
fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer
protection.

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/consumer-case-not-maintainable-over-
medical-services-given-free-of-charge-doctor-salary-hospital-supreme-court-
187291?infinitescroll=1

13
PETITIONER TC-1

 However the complaint was not to be held maintainable against the

hospital.
 Hence, therefore no deficiency on the part of hospital.

ISSUE 3:
 The provision of conferring the right to appeal against an order issued
by the Commission based on the settlement in Mediation is not
Constitutionally valid.
 That the order was passed by the District Commission for settled their
dispute and the mediation was successful.

ISSUE 4:

 The provision that empowered the Central Consumer Protection

Authority to impose penalties on endorsers Constitutionally not valid.

STATEMENT IN ADVANCE

ISSUE 1:

14
PETITIONER TC-1

 Mrs. Nandini is belong to Indonesian Country, and according to she is a

foreign citizen for which she is not a consumer as per the Consumer
Protection Act,2019.

 The salary that is paid by the hospital administration to the employee medical
officer cannot be regarded as payment made onbehalf of the person availing of
the service or for his benefit so as tomake the person availing the service a
"consumer" under Section2(1)(d) in respect of the service rendered to him.”
The SupremeCourt has reiterated that service rendered by medical officers
onbehalf of a Hospital, free of cost, would not fall within the ambit ofSection
2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.

 Under consumer Protection she cannot claim remedies from the Bio-Med
Care Co. Indian Evidence Act Section 106 of the Act provides that when
any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him.

 Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin pharse that mean “the thing speaks for itself.”
In personal injury law, the concept of res ipsa loquitur (or just “res ipsa”
for short) opreates as an evidentiary rule that allow plaintiffs to establish
a rebuttable presumption of negligence o the part of the defendant
through the use of circumstantial evidence.

 This means that the while plaintiffs typically have to prove that the
defendant acted with a negligent state of mind, through res ipsa loquitur,
if the plaintiff puts forth certain circumstantial facts, it becomes the
defendant’s burden to prove he or she was not negligent.

 Res Ipsa Loquitur and Evidence Law Accidents happen all the time, and
the mere fact that an accident has occurred doesn’t necessarily mean that
someone’s negligence caused it. In order to prove negligence in a
personal injury lawsuit, a plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate
that the defendant’s negligence resulted in the plaintiff’s injury.
Sometimes, direct evidence of the defendant’s negligence doesn’t exist,
but plaintiff’s can still use circumstantial evidence in order to establish
negligence.

 Circumstantial evidence consists of facts that point to negligence as a

logical conclusion rather than demonstrating it outright. This allows
judges and juries to infer negligence based on the totality of the
circumstances and the shared knowledge that arises out of human
experience. Res ipsa is one type of circumstantial evidence that allows a

15
PETITIONER TC-1

reasonable fact finder to determine that the defendant’s negligence caused

an unusual event that subsequently caused injury to the plaintiff.

 She overcome her problem from the Pillai’s Wellness

Hospital as suggested by the Dr.Shivaraj and done her
Liposuction surgery in that hospital. On 4th June,2022 to 6th
June,2022.

ISSUE 2:


16