INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

Mrs.Talisa Stark …………………………………………………………………………Appellant

v.

Family court …………………………………………………………………………..Respondent

Mrs.Talisa Stark…………………………………………….……………………………Appellant

v.

Dr.Samuel Tarly and Citadel Hospital …………………...……………………………Respondent

Targaryen Charitable Blood Bank and Dr.Tyrion Lannister……………………….……Appellant

v.

Mrs.Talisa Stark………………………………………………….…………………….Respondent

Mrs.Talisa Stark………………………………………………………………………….Appellant

v.

Central and State Government…………………………………...……………………Respondent

 MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................................................................................... 9

ISSUES ………...................................................................................................................... 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................12

PRAYER………………......................................................................................................... 14
 MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Section 136 - Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
Special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
Cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of Indica.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or
made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Section 32 - Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may
be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution.
 MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Union of Indica is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic and republic

country. Indica has a written constitution in which In the Fundamental Rights, embodied in Part
III of the Constitution, are justiciable.

Mrs. Talisa Stark is a computer operator in an orphanage named Goodlife. She is

married to Mr. Rob Stark for the past six years who is an assistant teacher in a government
school in state of Westeros. Later, Talisa got conceived in January, 2018.

On 23rd October 2018, she was admitted to the Dr Tyrion Lannister’s Happy Mother
Clinic for the delivery of the child. Later, Talisa delivered a Baby Boy, Jon by caesarian. After
thedelivery, she suffered from postpartum haemorrhage. Due to excessive blood loss,
Talisa’s doctor decided to have a blood transfusion. Rob went to a private blood bank named
Targaryen Charitable blood blank. He purchased six units of blood and handed it over to
Dr.Lannister. Dr Lannister observed that a label from the blood bag was missing. After the
transfusion, both, the mother and the child, seemed fit and therefore, were discharged from the
clinic.

Few weeks after the discharge, Talisa experienced some changes and discomfort in her
body. She consulted Dr Lannister twice. However, the symptoms resurfaced and this time she
consulted another physician, Dr Samuel Tarly at the Citadel Hospital. After learning about
therecent blood transfusion, Dr Tarly asked her and her son to undergo ELISA test, in which she
and her son tested HIV positive.

Talisa asked Dr Tarly and Citadel Hospital authorities not to tell anything to anyone,
especially her husband. Believing that Talisa will not tell her husband about her HIV positive
status, the hospital informed her husband about this. After Rob got to know that his wife is HIV
positive, he filed for a divorce under Section 13(1) (v) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family
Court of Highgarden granted the divorce and proceeded for hearing on the issue of maintenance
to Talisa. On the date fixed for the hearing on the issue of maintenance, neither Talisa nor her
advocate was present in the court, without any notice. The court passed an ex parte order against
Talisa denying any maintenance to her. After 3 months of passing of the order, Talisa filed an
application in the court through another advocate for setting aside the ex parte order.
However,the family court dismissed the application on the ground of inordinate delay. Against
the order of the Family Court, Talisa filed a Special Leave Petition.

At the same time, Talisa had filed a complaint before the ombudsman appointed under
The Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention
and Control) Act, 2017 on the ground of violation of Section 9 of the Act by Dr Tarly and the
Citadel Hospital and claimed damages for the same. The ombudsman decided in favour of
Talisa that the hospital is liable to pay a compensation of Rs 10 Lakhs to her. The hospital went
for appeal to the National Disease Tribunal. The tribunal overturned the decision of the
ombudsman and decided in favour of the hospital. Now, Talisa has filed an appeal before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica (Civil Appeal No. 314/2021).

Talisa also filed a complaint against the Targaryen Charitable blood bank as well as Dr
Tyrion Lannister, before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal commission (SCDRC),
Westeros. The complaint was filed against the blood bank for selling the HIV infected blood,
without proper labelling on the blood bag, and against the doctor (i)For not testing the blood
before carrying out the transfusion, in spite of noticing missing labels from the blood bag,
particularly when proper labelling on the blood bag is a requirement under the Drugs &
Cosmetics Rules, 1945, (ii) for not taking real and valid consent for the blood transfusion, as the
complainant wasn’t informed about the inherent risks involved. The complainant prayed for the
compensation of Rs. 18 Lakh for the medical treatment for herself and her son Jon.

The SCDRC, Westeros held the blood bank liable for deficiency in service under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Also, there was a deficiency in service on Doctor’s part as well.
The commission decided that the Doctor is liable to pay Rs. 18 Lakhs. An appeal against the
order of SCDRC was filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the
National Commission Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The same was dismissed by the
NCDRC. Against the order of NCDRC, the blood bank and the Doctor filed an appeal before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Civil
Appeal No. 329/2020).
 While the proceedings were pending before NCDRC, Jon was diagnosed with a rare
disease called Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD). Talisa availed the financial assistance for
Jon’s treatment from Westeros SwasthKosh. With no support from her husband and no other
option left, Talisa, on behalf of Jon, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Indica, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court stating that the Central Government and the
Government of Westeros were obligated under Article 21 of the Constitution and Directive
Principles of State Policies to provide totally free treatment to the petitioner and like patients.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court admitted the said writ petition (WP No. 68/2020).
 MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

ISSUES RAISED

(i) Whether the ex parte order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Highgarden is liable to be set
aside on the ground of negligence of the advocate and innocence of the party?

(ii) Whether the decision of the National Disease Tribunal denying the liability of Doctor Samuel
Tarly and Citadel Hospital for the violation of section 9 of HIV AIDS Act, 2017, is liable to be
set aside?

(iii) Whether NCDRC order upholding the decision of the SCDRC of holding the Targaryen
Charitable Blood Bank and Tyrion Lannister liable for deficiency in service and medical
negligence liable to be set aside?

(iv) Whether the Central and State Government’s refusal to free treatment of a minor suffering
from a rare disease, where the parent of the child cannot afford the treatment is in violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of Indica?
 MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: Whether the ex parte order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Highgarden is
liable to be set aside on the ground of negligence of the advocate and innocence of the
party?

It is humbly submitted that according to the Article 164 of the Indica Constitution an application
by my client Talisa Stark, for an order to set aside a decree passed ex-parte. As sited in The
Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Anr. Vs. Raghu Raj 1 and held that, Even
if there is default on the part of advocate in not appearing at the time of hearing, Appellant shall
not suffer injustice. It is true that no Court is obliged to adjourn a case because of the difficulty
of a Counsel. In fact, it is the solemn duty of every Court to proceed with judicial business fixed
for the day yet in an appropriate case where no fault lies at the door of litigant, Court should not
be in a hurry to dismiss the case in default or for non- prosecution on account of absence of his
counsel. The Court must be considerate while dealing with an application for recall of dismissal
or ex-parte order if a justifiable cause for non-appearance of counsel was made out, the simple
reason being; ultimately, it would be the litigant who will have to suffer the consequences of the
Order. This practice can only be discouraged by rejecting such applications for restoration or
appeals, as the case may be. However, the end result of every case should be justice. The Party
who has shown faith in the judicial system must not be disappointed because of the default of his
duly engaged Advocate. The Advocates Act and other rules of the Bar Council require an
Advocate to argue the case of his Client in the best possible manner and keeping up highest
professional standards.
ISSUE II: Whether the decision of the National Disease Tribunal denying the liability of
Doctor Samuel Tarly and Citadel Hospital for the violation of section 9 of HIV AIDS Act,
2017, is liable to be set aside?

It is humbly submitted that according to Section 9(1)(c) of THE HUMAN IMMUNO

DEFICIENCY VIRUS AND ACQUIREDIMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME
(PREVENTION AND CONTROL) ACT, 2017 A healthcare provider, who is a physician or a
counsellor, may disclose the HIV positive status of a person under his direct care to his or her
partner, if such health care provider Is satisfied that such HIV positive person will not inform
such partner since Talisa asked Dr Tarly and Citadel Hospital authorities not to tell anything to
anyone, especially her husband. She said that she will tell her husband about her disease when
the time comes. The hospital and Dr. Tarlin violated the above mentioned section. According to
Section 9(2) In case of the disclosure of the HIV positive status of a HIV positive person in
violation of this provision, the healthcare provider will be responsible to pay reasonable damages
to such HIV positive person the hospital held liable the decision of the National Disease Tribunal
denying the liability of Doctor Samuel Tarly and Citadel Hospital for the violation of section 9 of
HIV AIDS Act, 2017, liable is not to be set aside.
ISSUE III: Whether NCDRC order upholding the decision of the SCDRC of holding the
Targaryen Charitable Blood Bank and Tyrion Lannister liable for deficiency in service and
medical negligence liable to be set aside?

Petitioner:
ISSUE IV: Whether the Central and State Government’s refusal to free treatment of a
minor suffering from a rare disease, where the parent of the child cannot afford the
treatment is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of Indica?

It is humbly Submitted that under Article 32, we have filed a Mandamus writ petition. According
to Article 21 of Constitution of Indica, No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law, nor shall any person be denied equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of Indica. Article 25(1) The right
to health is an inclusive right, extending not only to timely and appropriate health care, but also
to the underlying determinants of health, such as access to safe and potable water and adequate
sanitation, healthy occupational and environmental conditions, and access to health- related
education. With reference to above mentioned articles, the child, Jon has all the right to get
financial aid from the government When we speak about a right, it correlates to a duty upon
another, individual, employer, government or authority. In other words, the right of one is an
obligation of another. Hence the right of a citizen to live under Article 21 casts obligation on the
State. This obligation is further reinforced under Article 47, it is for the State to secure health to
its citizen as its primary duty. As sited in the case law, Mohd. Ahmed (Minor) vs Union Of
Indica & Ors. on 17 April, 2014. Since a breach of a Constitutional right has taken
place, the Court is under a duty to ensure that effective relief is granted. Kindly favour the
judgement according to the above mentioned case law.
 MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT

 The ex parte order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Highgarden is liable to be set aside
on the ground of negligence of the advocate and innocence of the party.
 The decision of the National Disease Tribunal denying the liability of Doctor Samuel Tarly
and Citadel Hospital for the violation of section 9 of HIV AIDS Act, 2017, is liable to be set
aside
 NCDRC order upholding the decision of the SCDRC of holding the Targaryen Charitable
Blood Bank and Tyrion Lannister liable for deficiency in service and medical negligence.
 The Central and State Government’s accept for the free treatment of a minor suffering from a
rare disease, where the parent of the child cannot afford the treatment is in violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of Indica.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT IT MAY DEEM FIT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE FOR THIS
ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

Counsels for the Appellants