About the Competition
RostrumLegal is proud to announce the National Online Moot Court Competition, 2019. The theme of this edition of the competition is based on ‘Consumer Law’. The competition seeks to promote research and creative thinking among law students. The teams participating in the competition are expected to draft memorial from the complainant side on the basis and argue based on the memorial drafted. The entire competition is online and the participants are required to make the case presentation via video conferencing. The National Online Moot Court Competition is first of it’s kind and is being organized by RostrumLegal for the first time in India.
Awards & Prizes
Winner: INR 20,000/- (Cash Prize of Rupees Twenty Thousand)
Best Speaker: INR 15,000/- (Cash Prize of Rupees Fifteen Thousand)
Best Researcher: INR 15,000/- (Cash Prize of Rupees Ten Thousand)
All the registered participants (who submit their memorials by the due date and present their case) will receive RostrumLegal Gift Voucher worth Rs. 5000 each.
All the registered participants (who submit their memorials by the due date and present their case) will receive a certificate of participation which will be sent to them by post.
Teams must confirm their participation by filling up the online Registration Form by
July 10th, 2019 July 20th, 2019.
The number of Participating Teams shall be restricted to 50.
Every Participating Team will be allotted a team code which will be communicated in due time via email.
In case of any changes in the team composition, in terms of the members, the same must be officially conveyed to the Organizers in due time.
The Registration Fee for the competition is INR 3,500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred Only).
“Online” means controlled by or connected to a computer with the help of internet.
“Organizers” means the Moot Court Committee and members of Organizing Committee for the RostrumLegal National Online Moot Court Competition.
“Participating Team” means the team, which has registered itself for the competition.
“Participants” means the speakers and the researcher of the Participating Team.
All the rules are only inclusive and not exhaustive for the competition.
Rules should be strictly adhered to. Any deviation there from would attract disqualification or other penalties mentioned subsequently.
All decisions by the Organizers in case of any disputes/ doubts etc. will be final.
Imposition of penalties including disqualification rests solely with the Organizers in case of failure to comply with the rule(s) and deadline(s).
“Video Conference” means a live, visual connection between two or more people residing in separate locations for the purpose of communication.
“Web Camera” means a camera that records moving pictures and sound and allows these to be broadcast on the internet as they happen
The dress code for the competition shall be formals or business casual for both male and female participants.
The official working language of the Competition shall be English.
Undergraduate students pursuing three- or five-year courses of LL.B. degree from any Law School/College/University recognized by the Bar Council of India.
One team, comprising of a maximum of two (2) members, per team, shall be eligible to participate in the Competition, subject to completion of Registration formalities.
More than one team can participate from the same institution, subject to completion of Registration formalities.
From a team of two persons, one can appear to present the case. The other person shall be the researcher.
Each team should prepare one Memorial from the side of complainant only.
Participants are allowed to create a team of students studying in two different law school/college/university.
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTICIPATING TEAM:
Each team will have a team code and each participant shall be given an individual code.
Teams shall not disclose their identity or that of their institution or city, etc. except in registration form. Any such disclosure shall invite strict penalty, which may include disqualification. The decision for the same shall be at the sole discretion of the Organizing Committee.
The team codes will be generated randomly and by no means the team codes will interpret the number of teams participating.
Release of Moot Proposition: July 01, 2019
Last Day to Register Online:
July 10th, 2019 July 20th, 2019
Last Day to Seek Clarification: July 20, 2019
Release of Clarifications: July 22, 2019
Last Date to Submit Memorials (E-mail): August 10, 2019
Last Date to Submit Memorials (With Penalty): August 15, 2019
Online Researchers Test: August 29, 2019
Online Preliminary Round 1: August 30, 2019
Online Final Round: August 31, 2019
- Mr. Shivpal Singh Rana and Mrs. Sulekha Rana are husband and wife. The couple were blessed with a daughter on 30.12.2012 and named her as Saloni. On the night of 17/18.01.2016, the three-year-old Saloni, was diagnosed to be having symptoms of blood cancer. After conduction a bone marrow test and treating her 20 days, doctors from Pune advised her parents that the patient requires treatment for six months by way of Chemotherapy. She was shifted to Healtho Cancer Treatment & Research Foundation, Yelagiri on 17.02.2016
- At the Hospital, Senior Doctor and Head of the Medicines Department, Dr. Narendra Mahe prepared a Written Protocol of the treatment and the Patient was admitted and treated in the Hospital initially from 17.02.2016 to 21.02.2016 for which an amount of 8,655/- was charged. Dr. Mahe was assisted by Dr. Snehlata and Dr. Piyush Alvida
- As per the Protocol given by Dr. Narendra Mahe, the Patient was to be given four cycles of Chemotherapy for which 11 injections of Vincristine of 1 Mg each dose was to be given intravenously and 14 injections of Methotrexate was to be administered intrathecally and these four cycles were supposed to be completed within four to five months. The patient was given three cycles of Chemotherapy as on 14.06.2016 and the bone marrow test was conducted on 13.03.2016 her condition had improved as she responded well to the treatment. As on 14.06.2016, 9 injections of Vincristine and 13 injections of Methotrexate were administered, thereafter as per the protocol, she was to be given the last and fourth cycle of treatment on 05.07.2016, which included four injections of Vincristine Prednisone, Asparaginase and Methotrexate. The general habit o was that the requisite injections in a sealed condition were purchased form the pharmacy store of the Hospital and the same was handed over to the Doctors. For the last cycle too, the same process was followed and this time it was handed over to Dr. Piyush Alvida, who had just come out of the ICU unit.
- All the injections had a caution on the packet and in the caution, it was clearly written on that the medicine Vincristine was to be administered intravenously only. The direction slip also mentions that the medicines were to be administered only after reading the directions on the pack insert. Also, the Doctors had already given the treatment in the previous cycle, and hence they were expected to know the essential protocol to be followed. A central line was already fixed in the chest of the Patient for giving injections intravenously.
- In the last and the fourth cycle of the treatment, Dr. Snehlata and Dr. Alvida committed gross negligence by administering Vincristine injection to the Patient intrathecally instead of administering the same to her intravenously, although they knew that the administration of the injection in a wrong manner would prove fatal. When the Parents of the patient protested, the said Doctors stated that the medicine would ultimately reach the stomach and it does not matter as to how it is administered and though the same was also reported to Dr. Narendra Mahe, he too stated the same.
- When the Director of the hospital Dr. Alf Rodrique was contacted he stated that the even if wrong injection has been given by the subordinate Doctor, as the Patient was already suffering from cancer and would not live for more than five years, it did not make any difference
- Subsequently, the Doctors asked the Parents to procure ‘Enbrel’, which is an antidote of Vincristine and available in United States of America (USA). The said injection cost an amount of 4,80,000/- and the same was procured by Mr. & Mrs. Rana to save the Patient, but the Doctors refused to administer the same to the Patient on the ground that the Patient was too young for the same. Ultimately, the Patient’s condition worsened and she suffered paralysis and died on 20.07.2016
- The parents filed a Complaint before the Yelagiri Medical Association (YMA), lodged a FIR against the Doctors and the Criminal case is pending in the Court of Additional Judge Yelagiri under Section 304 (a) Indian Penal Code (IPC). The YMA acted on the complaint and asked the parties to state their replies.
- In the joint written statement filed by the hospital and Director, it was stated that, it is a natural process of death which occurs among patients who have received such kind of medicines. It was denied that they had charged an exorbitant amount for the treatment. and it was stated that Dr. Snehlata and Dr. Piyush Alvida, were Anaesthesiologists and were not related to the department of Oncology, but admitted that they did assist in rendering treatment to the minor child. It was denied that the Dr. Snehlata and Dr. Alvida were present in the operation theatre when the Patient was taken there. It was stated that all treatment was rendered as per standard protocol
- Dr. Narendra Mahe stated in his reply that the intrathecal injection was administered by anaesthetists of the Hospital; that the child was suffering from a terminal disease of blood cancer, which was already at an advance stage; that the treatment of the Patient was on the same line as has been suggested/ advised by the other reputed institutes where the Patient was taken for treatment and that she was insured by Interational Insurance Company covering the period from 24.03.2016 to 23.03.2017 for a sum of 10 lacs. Dr. Mahe also stated that he had never given an injection to the Patient and that medication to be given was duly prescribed and his role was only limited to the extent of giving the prescription and whatever prescribed for 05.07.2016 was mentioned in the treatment chart of the Patient.
- Dr. Snehlata, who is an Anaesthetist stated that on 05.07.2016 she was on duty from 2 p.m. and visited the Hospital in the morning to collect certain documents lying in the Hospital. She was requested by Dr. Rodrique, the senior surgeon to see the Patient for giving Anaesthesia and therefore she went into the operation theatre. When she was passing through the corridor, Dr. Alvida, called her to assist in giving lumbar puncture which he had tried three times as it was needed for administering the injection intrathecally. Hence she helped Dr. Alvida for giving lumbar puncture and left the Operation theatre. It was denied that she had given any injection. It was stated that Dr. Alvida was perfectly within his medical knowledge and totally vigilant to administer the prescribed injection.
- Dr. Alvida resisted the Complaint stating that he was a student Doctor doing D.N.B. (Anaesthesia), which is a two-year course at the Hospital. On the relevant day, his duty hours were from 2.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. and he denied giving any wrong injection to the Patient and further stated that he did not administer any injection to the Patient and further that this injection could have been given in the Chemotherapy ward.
- Cause of death stated by the expert panel on the basis of the histopathology report says as follows: “the board is of the opinion that cause of the death in this case is toxaemia of acute lymphoid leukaemia which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. However, treatment with antimitotic drugs and septicaemia due to fungal infection might have played the role in accelerating the process of death”
- Based on the reports and the statements made by the opposite parties, the Yelagiri Medical Association (YMA) came with the final report and the submitted the final report of the to the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the report states that:
Indian Medical Association,
Subject: – enquiry report into the Death of Ms. Saloni.
With the regards we state we have conducted the enquiry in the episode of the unfortunate death of the kid in Healtho Hospital who had been suffering from Acure Pymphobytic Leukemia.
At the outset we feel extremely sorry on the demise of Ms. Saloni a student of LKG. We have no words to offer to the aggrieved family and have full sympathy withthe family.
The enquiry committee constituted consisted of Dr. Skanda Nanda, Dr. Duplex Ohar and Dr. Reshma Chowkshi from YMA, besides the doctors from Healtho Hospital and members of the aggrieved family.
The kid who had been suffering from ALL had come in for routine Chemotherapy injections. The kid was handed over to Dr. Piyush Alvida an anaesthetist in Healtho Hospital.
Patient’s attendants handed over the injection to the doctor which was to be administered intra thecal i.e. in the back bone.
The concerned doctor without taking the file etc. of the patient and without identifying the injection and reading the instructions tried to give it intrathecal which was not advisable as that particular injection was Vincristine which is only of intravenous use.
The said doctor i.e. Dr. Alvida tried to inject the injection and gave two to three pricks and could not be successful. Giving intrathecal injections is a tedious job and at times doctors remain unsuccessful despite having vast experience.
Dr. Alvida at that particular time took the help of his senior Dr. Snehlata who made the needle been a great help to the kid in the earlier cycles of Chemotherapy as well.
The committee is of the view that the role of Dr. Snehlata was of a helping hand to Dr. Alvida of course without knowing the contents of the injection. This type of helping attitude is very common in medical practices.
The Committee concludes that whatever happened in Healtho Cancer Hospital was a mistake on the part of the doctors, which lead to an accident and further complications leading on to death of the patient.
YMA on its part duly apologises to the aggrieved family for this happening at the hands of the Medical people.
As per the information of the committee members the deceased has undergone autopsy. You may refer to the report of the concerned autopsy for further information.
The enquiry committee also want to bring into your kind consideration that the observations made above are based on the verbal admission of the doctors.
Sign Sign Sign
Dr. Skanda Nanda, Dr. Duplex Ohar Dr. Reshma Chowkshi
- Now the parents wants to approach the State Commission seeking the following reliefs:
Special damages of 11,890,749/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Eighty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred & Forty-Nine Only) detailed below:
|i.||Expenses incurred for medical treatment from 21.01.2016 to 31.03.2016||Rs.1,12,764.00|
|ii.||Expenses incurred for Medical treatment from 01.04.2016 to 31.07.2016||Rs.6,52,750.00|
|iii.||Hospital expenses from 21.01.2016 to 31.03.2016||Rs.2,20,810.00|
|iv.||Hospital expenses from 01.04.2016 to 31.07.2016||Rs.1,94,425.00|
And to pay general damages of Rs.50.00 lacs (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) on account of having lost their infant daughter of three and half years of age and by suffering pain and agony entailed therefrom also the parents want the other party to pay any other amount by way of punitive damages on account of the aforesaid wrongful/ impugned acts of the doctors and the hospital as the Hon’ble State Forum may deem fit and to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of damages to be awarded by the Hon’ble State Forum in the manner stated above, from the date of institution of this Complaint till realisation. To pay the costs of the proceedings of the Complaint too.
Names, characters, businesses, places, events, locales, and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.
Please follow the rules and regulations before submitting the final draft.
We will be clarifying your queries regarding the competition and the proposition here. Before that we would like to make few corrections in the moot problem right away. The first one is that the FIR has been filed against the hospital as well as the doctors. The second clarification is that the complaint has been filed under section 304A of the Indian penal code. It is wrongly mentioned as 340 of IPC. Now let us move on to the other queries raised.
1. Will we have to file one petition before the consumer forum and another complaint before the additional judge of Yelagiri, or only the consumer one? if there will be both, then the page limit of 35 and 20 pages is for each of them that is 70 and 40 pages in total or 35 and 20 pages is the cumulative page limit for both of them?
Each participating team has to draft a memorial from the side of the complainant. You don’t have to draft either a complaint or a petition
2. The state in which Yelagiri is situated is Tamil Nadu. So, can we take the state as Tamil Nadu? (Likewise, it will be Tamil Nadu State Commission and so on for drafting purpose?)(Also, will the state laws of Tamil Nadu apply?)
This case can be considered as a non-fictitious case. The laws of Tamil Nadu and all the central laws of India will be applicable
3. Can Yelagiri Medical Council be taken as equivalent as Tamil Nadu Medical Council?
4. Can the specialization of doctors in the committee please be specified?
5. Was changed dosage from 11 to 13 injections of Vincristine, additional Asparaginase and 14 to 17 injections of Methotrexate informed to the patient’s parents?
Kindly read the problem and find out
6. Is the FIR lodged only against the doctors or the hospital as well?
Yes. This is an important clarification and correction to be made in the proposition. The FIR was filed against the doctors and as well as the hospital
7. Should authorities be mentioned for every page or only for the page they are appearing for the first time?
List of authorities should be given in the beginning. In each page correct footnoting has to be done.
8. Is the histopathology report same as autopsy report?
Do your research
9. What all abbreviations can be used?
Standard abbreviations can be used
10. Are operation theatre and chemotherapy ward different or same?
11. It’s written in the proposition that ‘The parents filed a Complaint’ and ‘the parents want to approach the State Commission’, so can we make the complainant and petitioner only one of the parents or both have to be made parties to respective plaint and petition?
Finding the parties to the case is part of your research
12. Since the consumer petition is time barred, do we need to file a petition for condonation of delay as well?
Issues and arguments regarding the same can be included in the memorial
13. The case stated that the patient was suffering from “Acure Pymphobytic Leukemia”. After thorough research, I am unable to find any such existing disease which makes it difficult for me to prepare my case. Moreover, the case states that the patient’s parents filed an FIR under sec 304(a) of IPC. Sec 304 IPC deals with Wrongful Confinement which is not relevant in this current case. Also, the section doesn’t have any subclause. Please clarify my issues at the earliest. Thank you for your time and consideration.
It is Acute Lymphoid Leukemia and section 304 A of IPC
14. 5th Para of the YMA Report – it says that the injection was to be administered intrathecally… But the Protocol clearly says that it has to be administered intravenously… Clarify.
Advance arguments accordingly
15. Para 13..please make it clear that who constituted the Expert Panel to find the cause of death?
Yelagiri Medical Association
16. Para 7 – It says that the Doctors told the parents to bring the Antidote and then later the para says that the Doctors refused to administer the injection because the patient was too young for it…. Please clarify whether they were the same set of Doctors or different?
From the factual matrix, it is clear that a group of doctors were unorganized working together on the patient in a negligent manner. You may consider it as the same doctors
Submission and Citation Rules
The Memorial shall necessarily consist of the following and only the following sections:
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations
Index of Authorities
Statement of Jurisdiction
Statement of Facts
Issues for Consideration
Summary of Arguments
A team code shall be assigned to each of the Participating Teams at the culmination of Registration formalities. Names of the participants or of the Participating Institution/College/University being represented ought not to be mentioned anywhere in the Memorial. Any other mark, character or text that reveals the identity of the Participants or of the Participating Institution being represented would also be considered a violation of this rule. Violation of this Rule shall attract severe penalty at the sole discretion of the Organizers.
The electronic copy of each Memorial must reach the following e-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org latest by 00:00 hours (IST) on August 10th, 2019. Memorial must be attached in a single e-mail only. For every day of delay, there shall be a penalty of 2 Marks. However, no Memorial received after August 15th, 2019 shall be considered.
All Memorial submitted must strictly conform to the following general requirements. Non-conformity may attract negative marking in a manner as indicated below:
- Memorial must only be typed on plain white A4 paper with black ink.
- The font used must only be Times New Roman, Size 12 for the main text whereas it shall be 10 for the footnotes.
- The Standard Indian Legal Citation Style of footnoting must be strictly followed as far as practicable. In any case, footnoting must be uniform throughout the Memorial.
- You can access the Standard Indian Legal Citation guide here https://journal.rostrumlegal.com/quick-silc/
- Each page of the Memorial must have a margin of one inch on all sides. No text must be placed within this margin of the page, other than the page number.
- The maximum number of pages in the Memorial should not exceed 35 including 20 maximum pages for Written Submissions/ Arguments Advanced.
- Any form of legal argument or legal interpretation of the facts of the Proposition must be confined to the “Written Submissions” section of the Memorial.
- The Index of Authorities must contain a list of all legal authorities cited in any section of the Memorial. The Index must contain the page number(s) of the Memorial where the authorities are so cited.
- No amendments can be made to the Memorial after submission.
EVALUATION OF MEMORIAL:
Every Memorial will be marked on a total of 100 marks and the team memorial marks will be the average of the total of both sides. The following shall be the marking scheme:
|1||Application and appreciation of facts||20 Marks|
|2||Identification, structuring and presentation of issues||20 Marks|
|3||Application of legal principles, authorities and precedents||20 Marks|
|4||Ingenuity and logical reasoning||20 Marks|
|5||Lucidity and writing skills||10 Marks|
|6||Proper footnoting and formatting||10 Marks|
ONLINE ORAL ROUNDS:
The Oral Rounds will take place by the help of video conferencing. The participant will be available on one side and the judges from different locations will be available on the other side.
The further mode of video conferencing will be reveled later.
Participants are required to ensure electricity and internet connectivity on their side during the presentation slot.
Rules for the Presentation Round 1
- From a team of two persons, one can appear to present the case. The other person shall be the researcher.
- There shall be one preliminary round on August 30th, 2019.
- The Lots for the Preliminary round will be drawn by RostrumLegal Moot Court Committee.
- The Petitioner shall be allotted a total of 20 minutes to speak. An extension of 10 minutes of time beyond the specified period shall be subject to the discretion of the judges.
- At the end of the preliminary round, the top 10 teams will qualify for the Round 2. The top 10 teams will be selected on the basis of marks from the preliminary round and the marks of their memorial
- In the case of a tie, then it would be resolved by considering the memorial scores.
Rules for the Presentation Round 2
- The presentation round 2 shall be held on August 31st, 2019.
- The Petitioner shall be allotted a total of 30 minutes to speak. Any extension of time beyond the specified period shall be subject to the discretion of the judge
EVALUATION OF THE ORAL SUBMISSIONS:
The assessment of your presentation shall be out of 50 marks
|1.||Knowledge of facts||10|
|2.||Knowledge of Law||10|
|3.||Interpretation of Facts & it’s Application||10|
|4.||Use of Authorities||10|
|5.||Organization of Arguments||10|
An online written test will be conducted to decide the “Best Researcher” on August 29th, 2019. Questions for such researcher’s test will be framed based upon the factual circumstances of the Moot Proposition and the principles applicable thereto. This researcher’s test is open only for the designated researchers of the Participating Team.
The test shall be for a duration of 30 minutes and the same will be monitored via a web camera. The test will be of 60 questions. For each correct answer, 2 marks will be awarded and for each wrong answer, 1 marks will be deducted (-1 for each wrong answer).
The “Best Researcher” will be awarded on the basis of Researchers Test marks plus Memorial marks (Researchers Test Marks + Memorial Marks).
(In case of a tie, the score of the memorials will be considered to decide the “Best Researcher”).
Registration & Fees:
1. Teams must confirm their participation by filling up the online registration form.
2. The number of Participating Teams shall be restricted to 50 on a first come first serve basis.
3. Every Participating Team will be allotted a team code which will be communicated to them after registration
4. The Registration Fee for the competition is INR 3,500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred Only)
Step 1: Make the Online PaymentPay Now
Step 2: Fill the Registration FormRegistration Form
[wp_social_sharing social_options=’facebook,twitter,linkedin,pinterest’ twitter_username=’rostrumlegal’ facebook_text=’Share on Facebook’ twitter_text=’Share on Twitter’ linkedin_text=’Share on Linkedin’ pinterest_text=”Share on Pinterest” icon_order=’f,t,l,p’ show_icons=’0′ before_button_text=” text_position=” social_image=”]
Please feel free to get in touch if you have any question regarding the competition.
Call: +91 9844035831 or 080 41514788 (Monday to Friday: 10:00 am to 08:00 pm)