ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, IFHE, HYDERABAD

CLINICAL COURSE – I (MOOT COURT) MOOT PROBLEM – I

FOR BALLB/BBALLB HONS. (BATCH 2026)

1. Union of Nambia is a country with rich and vibrant culture. The country is a tourism
site and one of the reasons for it to attract tourists is due to the outstanding
healthcare infrastructure of the country.

2. Nambia has latest equipment and technology to diagnose and treat various
diseases. However, the sudden rise of NOVID -19 cases alerted nations against a
global health emergency. As a result, every country, including Nambia, made
efforts to stop the increase of infection, including bringing awareness and using
technology to ramp up medical facilities. Irrespective of taking all precautionary
measures, NOVID-19 spread like wildfire in Nambia. The most highly affected was
the State of Asbia in the Union of Nambia wherein every 9 th person was affected
with the virus.

3. Mrs. Revathi aged 38, citizen of Nambia, who was suffering from severe chest pain
and cough along with mild fever was brought to Ashraya General Hospital situated
at Asbia (hereinafter referred to as the Hospital), by her husband Mr.
Venkateshwar, she was examined by Dr. Joseph Columbus, Assistant Physician.
Doctor Joseph as per the protocol asked her to get an RTPCR test before any
further investigation could be conducted. It is diagnosed that she is suffering from
NOVID-19 as her RTPCR test came positive. As a result, Revathi was advised that
she needs to be isolated and certain standard medicines were given to her. Neither
did Dr. Joseph asked Revathi any questions pertaining to her medical history nor
did Revathi informed anything.

4. Meanwhile Baba Gyandev introduced a medicine ‘Norocure’ (hereinafter referred

to as the medicine) and claimed that this Ayurveda medicine can treat NOVID-
19. To the contrary, Ministry of AYUSH never granted an approval to this medicine.
Revathi saw the advertisement of Norocure and purchased this medicine and
started taking the same.
 ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, IFHE, HYDERABAD
CLINICAL COURSE – I (MOOT COURT) MOOT PROBLEM – I
FOR BALLB/BBALLB HONS. (BATCH 2026)

5. After four days she developed unbearable pain and breathlessness and was taken
again to hospital. The family members came to know that Dr. Joseph had gone for
a conference and would not be available for a week. Having no other option, she
was rushed to Private hospital situated at King Koti, in Asbia. She was examined
by duty doctor, Dr. Reshma Siddiqui and was requested to undergo certain
preliminary examination along with C.T scan.

6. The examination of C.T scan revealed that due to the infection, 90% of her lungs
are damaged. Along with this, some allergic reaction happened in her body. Dr.
Reshma’s primary action was that she asked Revathi of her family history and the
medicines that she was taking. Revathi informed that there is a history of diabetes
in her family and she also informed that she took the ‘Norocure’ medicine of Baba
Gyandev.

7. Dr. Reshma did all investigations and got to know that Revathi was diabetic and
that the allergic reaction was caused due to her high sugar level. However, as per
Dr. Reshma, Dr. Joseph prescribed her standard medicines that would affect a
diabetic patient but not to such a greater extent. Dr. Reshma administered an
antidote for the allergic reaction and advised Revathi for immediate hospitalization.
However, due to the reaction, Revathi died within six hours from the admission.

8. Mr. Venkateshwar husband of Revathi went to Ashraya General Hospital and

alleged that due to their negligence, he lost his wife. The hospital has contended
that his wife was also duty bound and equally negligent as she also did not inform
regarding her medical history, secondly went against the prescribe course of
treatment and took the ‘Norocure’ medicine. As, a result she herself contributed to
her death.
 ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, IFHE, HYDERABAD
CLINICAL COURSE – I (MOOT COURT) MOOT PROBLEM – I
FOR BALLB/BBALLB HONS. (BATCH 2026)

9. Venkateshwar filed a civil case of medical negligence against Dr. Joseph and the
hospital before the District Court and filed for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

10. District Civil Court held that Dr. Joseph Columbus and the hospital were negligent
as the fault was of the Hospital and Dr. Joseph failed to take care and did not follow
the protocol. Thus, the Hospital was ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.
20,00,000/ and passed a suspension order against Dr. Joseph.

11. Aggrieved with the decision of the District Court, the Hospital along with Dr. Joseph
filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Asbia making Baba Gyandev
as a party to the proceedings as well. They contended that it was Baba Gyandev
was responsible for false advertisement and making such a medicine available in
the market that has not yet received the approval. High Court reversed the
judgement of the District Civil Court and ordered for prosecution against Baba
Gyandev.

12. Aggrieved by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Asbia,
Venkateshwar along with Baba Gyandev filed an appeal before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Nambia contending that it was solely the neglect of the Hospital
and Dr. Joseph. Baba Gyandev contending that he should not at all be involved as
he did not force Revathi to take the medicine. Therefore, the matter is now listed
before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Nambia for disposal.

SUBMIT YOUR ARGUMENTS

For the purpose of this Moot Problem:

1. The Constitution of Nambia adopts the Constitution of India in verbatim and the
provisions of the Indian Constitution are the provisions of the Nambia Constitution.
 ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, IFHE, HYDERABAD
CLINICAL COURSE – I (MOOT COURT) MOOT PROBLEM – I
FOR BALLB/BBALLB HONS. (BATCH 2026)

2. The rest of the laws of Nambia which include substantive, procedural and other laws
are in parametria with the laws of Republic of India.
3. The Powers and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nambia are the same as the
Powers and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India.

Disclaimer:
The facts stated in the present case are fictitious and have been drafted solely for the
purpose of the moot court examination. The facts, names, locations and dates bear no
resemblance to any person, event or happening whether dead or alive. Any resemblance,
if any found is purely coincidental. The problem does not intend to hurt the feelings of any
section or to offend any person.

Note:
The students with ODD Enrolment Number submit Arguments on
behalf of Appellants
AND
The Students with EVEN Enrolment Number Submit Arguments on
behalf of Respondents

Last Date to submit Written Memorials - 07/04/2022 before 9PM

Oral Presentation -
Offline Students: 08/04/2022
Online Students: 09/04/2022