PNM-7

3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARAT

IN THE MATTER OF:

JORDAN JAKHAR (JJ)............................................................APPELLANTS

VERSUS
PLATINUM GROUP..............................................................RESPONDENT

MAP No. of 2022

(Under Article 133 of the CONST of Bharat)

As submitted to the Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bharat

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. TABLE OF PG. NO.

CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 9

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12

8. PRAYER 22

2|Page

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

1. & &

2. @ At

3. CJ Chief Justice

4. A.I.R. All India Reporter

5. Anr. Another

6. Art. Article

7. SSC supreme court cases

8. SC supreme court

9. Cl. Clause

10. Const. CONST

11. Pvt Private

12. V versus

13. ICA Indian Contract Act

14. Del. Delhi

15. Ed. Edition

16. F.R. Fundamental Right

17. Govt. Government

18. CPA Consumer Protect Act

19. HC High Court

20. Hon‟ble Honorable

3|Page

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S. NO. CASES PG. NO.

1. Dale & Carrington Investment Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan (2005) 1 SCC 212. 12

2. Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons. Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. 12
Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
3. Art. 133, CONST of India, 1950 12

4. Parman& Kataria vs. Union of India 14

5. 14
Kusum Sharma & others v. Batra Hospital & medical research centre &
others

6. 15
Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbark Babu Godbole & Anr

7. Vinod Jain Vs. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital & Ors 15

8. Robinson v Davison (1871) LR 6 Ex 269 16

9. Taylor v. Caldwell,3 B&S 826: 122 ER 309 16

10. Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. 1954 SCR 310 17

11. Pameshwari Das Mehra v. Ram Ch& Om PrakashAIR 1952 34,38. 17

12. Abk Prasad vs Union of India (Uoi) & Ors, A.M. Kuttysankaran Nair vs 18
P.V. Kumaran Nair & Ors

13. D. Rama Subba Reddy vs P.V.S. Rama Das 19

14. In Indian Medical Association vs. V.P Santha 20

15. Sanjay verma vs Haryana Roadways 21

16. Dr. Balram Prasad Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors. 21

17. Rais Ahmad vs Kamal Giri 18

18. AM Mathew v director, Karuna hospital 21

4|Page

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

S. NO. STATUTES
1. THE CONST OF INDIA,1950
2. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872
3. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019
4. LAW OF TORTS

S. NO. ONLINE DATABASE

1. AIR Online (All Indian Reporter)
2. Live law
3. SCC Online
4. Live law

S.no. BOOKS

1. The Indian contract (Pollock & Mulla)

2. Law of Torts (Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal)

5|Page

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner herein humbly submits that the law of Bharat is in pari materia to the laws of
Republic of India & thus prefers to invoke The Hon'ble Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear &
adjudicate over the matter under Article 133 in the CONST of India.
Article 133 of CONST of India read as-

Article 133: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to
civil matters
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil
proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies under Article
134A
(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; &
(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme
Court
(2) Notwithst&ing anything in Article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court under clause
(1) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of this CONST has been wrongly decided.

6|Page

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

. ABOUT THE CONTRACT

Jordan Jakhar (JJ) is a very popular vocal artist, having fan base across the world who is a
resident of Prayagraj. He travels over the world to promote heavy metal music. Jordan Jakhar
signed a contract with Platinum Group, a Vidhyanchal based company. As per the contract,
Jordan Jakhar was to be paid a total amount 3.5 Crores, for a total of 5 performances across
India. Platinum Group was also responsible for the management of hospitality & other event
management related responsibilities of the artist.

EVENTS CONDUCTED

According to social media & news sources, the first event held at Vidharbh was a huge success.
The following scheduled event was in Ahilya Nagar, an underdeveloped city with very limited
fanbase of Jordan Jakhar. Because of the limited fanbase, artist Jordan Jakhar insisted to change
the location, but all the arrangements were already done, his request was denied.

During the event, a large number of residents were already infected with the ‘ SARS VIRUS’. The
event was held in the beach of Ahilya Nagar. Soon after the event, Jordan Jakhar had some
issues with throat so he decided to rest in his room. This was not a good option because JJ
immediately developed a headache & terrible tonsils. Then he was admitted to the PLATINUM
HOSPITAL, where JJ was given a care room which was very poorly ventilated due to which his
discomfort increased. The medicines which were provided to JJ by the hospital affected him
adversely.

After the adverse medicine affect, JJ & his team decided to leave for Indraprastha immediately for a
better treatment before the situation worsens. Assuming the infection to be a minor one, the
organizers started preparing for their third & flagship line-up which was to be conducted in Madras.
The organizers called up the manager of the artist & threatened him to face appropriate consequence
if the artist does not perform for them in the next lined up event when they found out the artist has left
& had no intention to come back.

7|Page

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

Soon after the day JJ was threatened, he went live on the social media & told that he was poorly treated
by the organizers & organizers are planning to harm the artist. JJ told that “I signed up for this event to
reach out to maximum fans of metal music, I signed up to give power to the people through our music. The
Vidarbh event was a great success, I don’t know what made them treat me & my staff poorly. Ahilya
Nagar was a black chapter of my career; the facilities were worst. Doctors here have told me that
medicine provided in Ahilya Nagar didn’t suit my body & the infection is serious. My career is on stake,
maybe money is the only thing which those inhumane capitalists care about.

This message went viral on social media & a social media campaign was launched against
Platinum Group because of poor management. Fans of the artist were very much triggered &
pelted stones on the property of Platinum Group. Hashtags like #boycottplatinum,
#inhumaneplatinum were trending on social media.

THE CASE

This campaign led to cancellation of the whole tour of artists. The Platinum group observed
substantial loss of finances due to the campaign. Platinum Group sued JJ for Breach of
Contract & civil Defamation & following JJ sued the Platinum group for Negligence &
Medical Negligence.

8|Page

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:

WHETHER THE PETITION BROUGHT BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS

COURT IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE PLATINUM GROUP HAS COMMITTED WILFUL & MEDICAL

NEGLIGENCE?

ISSUE III:

WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT BY JORDAN

JAKHAR?

ISSUE IV:

WHETHER JJ IS LIABLE FOR CIVIL DEFAMATION AGAINST P L A T I N U M

GROUP?

ISSUE V:

WHETHER JORDAN JAKHAR SHALL BE COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS/HARM

INCURRED?

9|Page

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PETITION BROUGHT BY THE APPELLANT

BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE?
It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that under Article 133 of the CONST of India any
person, aggrieved by any order or decision of high court in India can approach the Supreme Court
through an appeal under Article 133 that states an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any
judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the
High Court certifies under article 134A-(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of
general importance; & (b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be
decided by the Supreme Court. The Appellants humbly submit that all grounds required for the
grant of an appeal under Article 133 are satisfied & hence, this Hon’ble Court adjudicate the same.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE PLATINUM GROUP HAS COMMITTED WILFUL &
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE?

Medical negligence refers to the breach of a duty of care, which results in damage in the form of
monetary terms, health terms, derogating the condition of the patient, causing trauma to the
patient.

Mr. Jordan Jakhar was shifted to Platinum Group's hospital namely Platinum hospital when he
observed some issues with his throat followed by headache & as well as severe tonsils. The care
room in which Mr. Jakhar was admitted to was not very ventilated which caused a huge
discomfort. Mismanagement of hospitality was observed at that particular time. After the
treatment, Mr. Jakhar was provided some kind of highly reactive medicines which affected him
very adversely & negatively. Because of the carelessness of the hospital medical staff &
department Mr. Jordan Jakhar's condition deteriorated which makes Platinum Group willful
responsible for medical negligence done by the Platinum Hospital as they were solely
responsible for management of hospitality & other event management related responsibilities of
the artist.

ISSUE III: WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT BY JORDEN

JAKHTAR?
It is humbly submitted that JJ cannot be held liable under section 73 of the Indian contract Act in
the present matter. Section 73 is not attracted because the contract was frustrated under the doctrine
of frustration enshrined under section 56 of the Indian contract act which states Agreement to do
impossible act. —An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. Contract to do an act
10 | P a g e
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT
 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. —A contract to do an act which, after the contract is
made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent,
unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.
JJ was unable to perform due to sudden illness & severe infection in throat, the contracted was
frustrated & as the nature of the contract was such that the terms required personal performance &
incapacity by the means of illness put the contract to an end.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER JJ IS LIABLE FOR CIVIL DEFAMATION AGAINST PLATINUM

GROUP?

Defamation is a public communication which tends to injure the reputation of another

mentioned under Law of Torts. What statements are defamatory & the span of defences varies
from jurisdiction to jurisdictions but there is common agreement in all jurisdiction that
statements that are unflattering, annoying, irksome, embarrassing or hurt one's feelings are not
actionable. Common element in all jurisdictions is the potential to injure the reputation." The
statements spoken by JJ were purely facts & not false statements, for being a defamation, the
most important element to be present is that the words stated should be false. Therefore, there
are no grounds for defamation & the respondent’s plea is not maintainable.

ISSUE V: WHETHER JORDAN JAKHAR SHALL BE COMPENSATED FOR THE

LOSS/HARM INCURRED?

The honourable counsel on behalf of JJ most humbly submits that the Petetioner must be granted
the claim as the respondent is liable under the law of torts. The Platinium group is liable for
negligence as it refers to the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do or the doing of
something which a reasonable & prudent man would not do & medical negligence that refers to
the breach of a duty of care, which results in damage in the form of monetary terms, health
terms, derogating the condition of the patient, causing trauma to the patient & as there was a
breach of duty towards JJ by the Platinum group. hence, javed jakhar shall be compensated for
the loss/harm incurred & should provide for other damages.

11 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE

THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE?

1.1 The Petitioner has Locus Standi to approach this Hon’ble Court
It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the appellant has Locus Standi to approach the
Honourable SC in the present case under Article 133 of the CONST of India. any person,
aggrieved by any order or decision of high court in India can approach the Supreme Court through
an appeal under Article 1331 that is Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High
Courts in regard to civil matters
It states an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil
proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies under article 134A-
(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; & (b) that in the
opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The
Appellants humbly submit that all grounds required for the grant of an appeal under Article 133 are
satisfied & hence, this Hon’ble Court adjudicate the same.
1.2 The Matter Involves substantial question of law of general importance & Hence, Entitled
to Be Maintainable.
Where findings are entered without considering relevant materials & without following proper
legal procedure, the interference of the Supreme Court is called for.2 The expression "substantial
question of law" is not defined in any legislation. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite
connotation through various judicial pronouncements. A CONST Bench of the Apex Court, while
explaining the import of the said expression, observed that: “The proper test for determining
whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of
general public importance or whether it directly & substantially affects the rights of the parties & if
so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by
the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of
alternative views.”3
Hence, this case involves a matter of general public importance & it directly & substantially affects
the rights of the parties as the order is erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners. It is

1
Article 133 of the Indian CONST
2
Dale & Carrington Investment Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan (2005) 1 SCC 212.
3
Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons. Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314
12 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

humbly submitted that substantial & grave injustice has been done to the rights of the petitioner &
that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision
appealed against Platinum Group.

13 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

ISSUE II:

WHETHER THE PLATINUM GROUP HAS COMMITTED WILFUL &

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE?

Negligence is simply the failure to exercise due care. The three ingredients of negligence are as
follows:
1. The defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff.
2. The defendant has breached this duty of care.
3. The plaintiff has suffered an injury due to this breach.

Medical negligence is no different. It is only that in a medical negligence case, most often, the
doctor is the defendant. It is well known that a doctor owes a duty of care to his patient. This duty
can either be a contractual duty or a duty arising out of tort law. In some cases, however, though a
doctor- patient relationship is not established, the courts have imposed a duty upon the doctor. In
the words of the Supreme Court “every doctor, at the governmental hospital or elsewhere, has a
professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life”4
The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill & knowledge & must
exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care &
competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law
requires5.

Mr Jordan Jakhar was shifted to Platinum Group's hospital namely Platinum hospital when he
observed some issues with his throat followed by headache & as well as severe tonsils. The care
room to which Mr. Jakhar was admitted to a room which was not very ventilated which caused a
huge discomfort. Mismanagement of hospitality was observed at that particular time. After the
treatment, Mr. Jakhar was provided some kind of highly reactive medicines which affected him
very adversely & negatively. Because of the carelessness of the hospital medical staff &
department Mr. Jordan Jakhar's condition deteriorated which makes Platinum Group willful
responsible for medical negligence done by the Platinum Hospital as they were solely
responsible for management of hospitality & other event management related responsibilities of
the artist.

4
Parman& Kataria vs. Union of India
5
Kusum Sharma & others v. Batra Hospital & medical research centre & others
14 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

In the case of Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbark Babu Godbole & Anr.it has been laid
down that: “When a patient consults a doctor, the doctor owes to his patient certain duties which
are:
(a) duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, (b) duty of care in deciding what
treatment to give, & (c) duty of care in the administration of that treatment”.6

‘Reasonable’ care means exercise of that degree of care & skill which could be expected of a
normal, prudent practitioner of the same professional experience. In addition, negligence cannot be
attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill & competence. Merely
because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would
not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession. But if
he falls below the reasonable st&ard of care & caution which must be needed while treating their
patients, then the doctors are said to be liable for medical negligence which is a professional
negligence.
Mr JJ was prescribed the wrong medications by the doctor of Platinum Hospital, which adversely
affected him. The conditions of the hospital room in which JJ was admitted was also not properly
ventilated. There has been a Breach of Duty of care of the Platinum Hospital towards Jordan
Jakhar which amounts to medical negligence on the behalf of Platinum Hospital.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Vinod Jain Vs. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital &
Ors 7
. has recently upheld the Order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission ("NCDRC") exonerating the respondents i.e., the hospital & treating doctor from any
medical negligence.
In the present case, the maxim the principle of “ipsa loquitur” which means things speak for itself
can be applied. In such a scenario, the medical professional has acted beneath the set st&ard of
care causing negligence which can be observed when the respondent side provided the medicine to
JJ which affected him adversely & the hospitality management lacked duty of care towards the
petitioner. Under this principle it is presumed that the injury could not have been caused from
anything but the negligence on part of the medical professional which can be drawn out from the
case.

6
1969 AIR 128, 1969 SCR (1)206
7
AIR2019SC1143
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT
 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

15 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

ISSUE III: WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT

BY JORDAN JAKHAR

It is humbly submitted that JJ cannot be held liable under section 73 of the Indian contract Act
1872 in the present matter. Section 73 is not attracted because the contract was frustrated under the
doctrine of frustration enshrined under section 56 of the Indian contract act 1872 which is an
exception to the general rule of contracts where compensation is provided in case of a loss”

Section 56 of The Indian Contract Act 1872 states that:

Agreement to do impossible act. — An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. Contract
to do an act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. —A contract to do an act which, after
the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could
not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.
This has been well-established in the case of Robinson v. Davison8 where there was a contract
between the plaintiff & the defendant’s wife who agreed to perform piano at a concert of the
plaintiff on a
stipulated date. But due to sudden illness she was unable to perform at the concert & this was
informed to the plaintiffs on the morning of the date of performance.
Frustration is an act outside the contract due to which the completion of a contract becomes
impossible. After the parties have concluded a contract, events beyond their control may occur
which frustrate the purpose of their agreement, or render it very difficult or impossible, or as even
illegal, to perform. in the case of Taylor vs. Cardwell it was held that when an opera house, which
was rented for holding concerts, was destroyed by fire, the contract was frustrated. This was
because the very thing on which the contract depended on ceased to exist. Thus, it was held that
for the doctrine of frustration it must be so that the nature of contract is such that it would not
operate if a thing ceased to exist.9
Impossibility of performance may also arise where contractual obligations become incapable of
performance without any default of either party, because the circumstances in which performance
is called for are radically different from that undertaken by the contract.

8
Robinson v Davison (1871) LR 6 Ex 269
9
Taylor v. Caldwell,3 B&S 826: 122 ER 309
16 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

Supreme Court in the case of Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co observed “This much
is clear that the word ‘impossible’ has not been used here in the sense of physical or literal
impossibility. The performance of the act may not be literally impossible but it may be
impracticable & useless from the point of view of the object & purpose which the parties had in
view; & if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon
which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well
be said that the promisor finds it impossible to do the act which he promises to do.”10

In Pameshwari Das Mehra v. Ram Ch& Om Prakash explained the principle thus: It is clear that if
there is entirely unanticipated change of circumstances the question will have to be considered
whether this change of circumstances has affected the performance of the contract to such an
extent as to make it virtually
impossible or extremely difficult or hazardous. If that be the case, the change of circumstances not
having been brought about by the fault of either party, the courts will not enforce the contract.11

In this case, the appellant was unable to perform due to sudden illness & severe infection in throat,
& made worse by the actions of the platinum thus making the act subsequently impossible & the
outbreak of SARS or the restrictions imposed in view thereof, make it “impossible” for them to
perform their obligations. If so, & depending on the facts & circumstances, such parties who are
unable to perform their contractual obligations, may have no option but to invoke the doctrine of
frustration (i.e., that such obligations have become impossible to perform) to defend any action
initiated against them. The contract was frustrated & as the nature of the contract was such that the
terms required personal performance & incapacity by the means of illness put the contract to an
end. Taking in point the arguments that were advanced till now the argument of frustration of
contract is valid as subsequent impossibility.

10
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. 1954 SCR 310
11
Pameshwari Das Mehra v. Ram Ch& Om PrakashAIR 1952 34,38.
17 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

ISSUE IV: WHETHER JJ IS LIABLE FOR CIVIL DEFAMATION

AGAINST PLATNIUM GROUP?

Defamation is the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation
of that person when observed through the eyes of ordinary man. Any false & unprivileged
statement published or spoken deliberately, intentionally, knowingly with the intention to damage
someone's reputation is defamation. The most important essential needed for defamation is that the
statement should be falsely stated. If the statement is dishonouring but is a fare comment based on
a true incident, it does not amount to defamation. Here are major essentials for a statement to be
defamatory
–
 Statement made must be false
 Statement made should be intended to defame someone’s reputation

In the case of appellate, the statements made by Jordan Jakhar was not defamatory nor false. The
most important condition for defamation which is to be false is missing here. JJ stated the things
which were purely factual & true. JJ told his fans that he was treated poorly by organizers,
Platinum Group. This was truly bagged by facts as JJ was provided with unventilated care room in
the hospital with poor facility. JJ’s managers were threatened by the Platinum Group to face the
repercussions if he did not perform in next concert. JJ mentioned everything which happened to
him during the tour.

Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published - It is not defamation to
impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the
imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of
fact12. The appellate solely stated the truth which is an exception to defamation as aforementioned.
JJ mentioned that Ahilya Nagar concert was a black chapter in his career. JJ suffered severe tonsils
followed by headache & also poor mis management. His voice is only the reason for his success
but in his Ahilya Nagar concert, it was on stake. JJ did not mention anything against or hatred for
Platinum Group but solely facts.
In the case of Rais Ahmad vs Kamal Giri13 it is stated that Truth is an exception to the defamation
& the truth can be a valid defence in a case of defamation stated by the Hon’ble High Court of
Uttrakh&. In this case a complaint has been moved by respondent for defamation before the court
12
Abk Prasad vs Union of India (Uoi) & Ors, A.M. Kuttysankaran Nair vs P.V. Kumaran Nair & Ors
13
WRIC/42959/2009
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT
 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

18 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

concerned against the applicant. The case of the applicant before this Court is that being a journalist,

he has reported the matter in the newspaper known as "Shah Times". Since it was a true incident &
it was the duty of the reporter to publish news items, hence no defamation has been committed by
the applicant. After referring to this case it has been observed that JJ has also stated solely truth
which is a valid defence in case of defamation.
If the allegation is true, irrespective of the fact whether good faith is proved, or not the accused is
protected by the exception. Even if the allegations are defaming & dishonouring but true, it does
amounts to defamation.14
The Civil Defamation suit by respondent it therefore not Maintainable. JJ has not committed the
offence of Defamation because the appellate is bagged by the first exception of defamation which
states that “it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person” stated in
Lal Vs. State of Punjab. 15
The First Exception stipulates that it is not defamation to impute
anything which is true. The appellant’s statement comes under the truth which does make him
liable for defamation. Defamation i.e., an injury to a person's reputation, is both a crime & a civil
wrong. In a civil action for defamation in tort, truth is a defence. The defence of truth is not
satisfied merely by proving that the publisher honestly believed the statement to be true, he
must prove that the statement was in fact true. This has been proven by the appellant in the above-
mentioned facts therefore there is no grounds to which he may be liable for civil defamation.

14
D. Rama Subba Reddy vs P.V.S. Rama Das
15
(1970) 1 SCC 590
19 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

ISSUE V: WHETHER JJ SHALL BE COMPENSATED FOR THE

LOSS/HARM INCURRED?

The Honourable counsel on behalf of JJ most humbly submits that the Appellant must be
granted the claim as the respondent is liable under the Law of Torts. The Platinum group is
liable for Negligence.
Negligence refers to the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do or the doing of
something which a reasonable & prudent man would not do & medical negligence that refers to
the breach of a duty of care, which results in damage in the form of monetary terms, health
terms, derogating the condition of the patient, causing trauma to the patient & as there was a
breach of duty towards JJ by the Platinum group. hence, JJ shall be compensated for the
loss/harm incurred & should provide for other damages.

Civil liability under Consumer Forum:

An aggrieved person can approach the consumer courts to file a case against the accused person &
the hospital. In Indian Medical Association vs. V.P Santha 16 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that the medical practitioners are covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 & the medical
services rendered by them should be treated as services under
section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Similarly, under the new Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, the medical services shall fall under the ambit of services as mentioned in
section 2(42) of the new Act. Any matter in medical negligence on the part of the service provider
will be considered as deficiency under section 42(11) of the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Any aggrieved person can claim damages for medical negligence against a doctor or a hospital.
Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 lays down the time limit within which a
complaint for medical negligence must be filed as 2 years from the date of injury.17

16
1995 SCC (6) 651
17
Consumer Protection Act,2019
20 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

In the case of Sanjay verma vs Haryana Roadways the supreme court held that compensation of
Rs.19,91,702 be paid to the client under the heads of loss of income, medical expenses, further
treatment, pain & suffering.18

In case of A.M. Mathew vs. the director, Karuna Hospital19 & where an eight-year-old boy was
taken to hospital following fever & cold, the doctor prescribed an injection which was
administered by the nurse immediately developed paralysis of left leg. The complainant dem&ed
compensation on the doctrine evolved by the National Commission that the hospital is responsible
for the acts of its employees & the hospital is liable for the consequences. The court held that
minor char had suffered on account of negligence of the nurse who was an employee of the
hospital. Hence the hospital is liable to pay damages to the complainant for the treatment
expenditure & cost of proceedings.
It is the case of the claimant that the National Commission has awarded paltry amount equivalent to
$20,000 for the enormous & lifelong pain, suffering, loss of companionship & amenities that he
had been put through due to the negligent act of the appellant- doctors & the Hospital. The
claimant had claimed Rs.50 crores under this head before the National Commission without giving
any break up figures for the amount in Balram Prasad vs Kunal Saha & Ors.20
Keeping these facts & cases as reference, Appellant has lost income as a result of his medical
condition, & pain & suffering must be taken into account into the compensation for platinum
group's negligent behaviour, as well as the mental pressure caused by the platinum group's threats,
which caused additional stress to my client.

18
II (2007) ACC 182, 2008 ACJ 151
19
A M Mathew V Director, Karuna Hospital 1998(1) CPR 39
20
Dr. Balram Prasad Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors.
[Civil Appeal No.2867 of 2012]

21 | P a g e
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT
 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Wherefore, may it please the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the light of facts & circumstances of
thecase, issues raised, arguments advanced & authorities cited, the Petitioner prays that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge, rule upon, & determine the following:

 TO ALLOW THE APPEAL

 TO SET ASIDE THE ARGUMENTS (BREACH OF CONTRACT & CIVIL DEFAMATION)
MADE BY PLATINUM GROUP.
 TO PASS THE ORDER AGAINST PLATINUM GROUP FOR COMMITTING WILFUL
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE & MISMANAGEMENT DONE BY THEM IN THE FORM OF
NEGLIGENCE.
 TO GRANT COMPENSATION FOR NEGLIGENCE AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE BY THE
RESPONDENT AND ANY OTHER RELIEF WHICH THE HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM
THINK FIT IN THE EYES OF JUSTICE, EQUITY & GOOD CONSCIENCE.

&/or
pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity, & good conscience.

all of which is most respectfully prayed & humbly submitted.

(Signed)
Place:
Date:
Counsel for the Appellant

22 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT

 3rd SVKM NMIMS SOL INTRA MOOT COMPETITION

23 | P a g e

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE-APPELANT