Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Law and Medicine
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLB 3 years · Sem 6
May 2023 - 60/40 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LLB 3 years Sem 6 Law and Medicine May 2023 - 60/40 Question Paper with Solutions
Get access to whole semester resourcesSemester Pass
MU law student group
Free to join
First published on munotes.in on 24 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of the University of Mumbai. It is not affiliated with the University of Mumbai, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by the University of Mumbai at the May 2023 - 60/40 examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the May 2023 - 60/40 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the May 2023 - 60/40 examination, reproduced as the University of Mumbai set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 2 hours · Total marks 60 · 22 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q.1
Q.1: Answer in Detail, any two
24 Marks - 12 marks each
(1)IMA v V P Shantha- Discuss the impact of the case in in Detail.[12]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the position before 1995 (civil suit, criminal complaint, Medical Council; Galanter's three malpractice cases in ten years; the High Courts divided); what V.P. Shantha decided, briefly; the changes, actor by actor: for patients (a cheap and speedy forum; free, insured and employer-paid patients covered; family members as consumers; expert evidence not always needed, V. Kishan Rao), for doctors (the same substantive standard, but records, written consent, insurance and defensive practice), for hospitals (liability for staff and the burden of proof, Savita Garg worked), for compensation (Nizam's Institute worked, Balram Prasad); the position now (the 2019 Act; Bar of Indian Lawyers, 2024); a before-and-after table; the limits; a conclusion.
Before 1995
A patient harmed by a doctor had three slow routes. He could file a civil suit for damages, set the criminal law in motion, or complain to the Medical Council. A civil suit meant court fees, a full trial and years of delay. A Medical Council could discipline a doctor but could not compensate the patient.
The result was that very few claims were made. In Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651, the Supreme Court cited Professor Galanter's study of tort cases from 1975 to 1985. Of "a total number of 416 tort cases" reported in the All India Reporter, "cases relating to medical malpractice were only three in number".
The law was also uncertain. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had held that paid medical treatment was a "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Madras High Court had held that it was not.
The decision
On 13 November 1995 the Supreme Court held that a doctor's consultation, diagnosis and treatment are "service" under section 2(1)(o). The exceptions are service free to everyone and service under a contract of employment. It added that "no change is brought about in the substantive law governing claims for compensation on the ground of negligence". The Act "only provides an inexpensive and a speedy remedy".
The changes, actor by actor
1. For patients: a forum within reach.
- Speed and cost. A complaint goes to a consumer forum in the patient's district, which decides on affidavits and documents in a summary procedure.
- Who is covered. The free patient in a hospital that charges others is a consumer too. So is a patient whose bills are paid by an insurer or an employer (conclusions (8), (10), (11), (12)). A child treated at his parents' cost and the parents themselves are consumers (Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia, AIR 1998 SC 1801).
- Simple cases need no expert. In V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital, (2010) 5 SCC 513, the Court held that "There may be simple cases of medical negligence where expert evidence is not required". There, a patient treated for typhoid when her test showed malaria won without an expert.
2. For doctors: the same standard, new habits.
- The standard did not change. A doctor is still judged by the ordinary competent practitioner, as in a civil court.
- Records and written consent became essential. A forum decides on papers, so the case file is the doctor's main evidence. Written, informed consent became routine, and its absence costly (Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda, (2008) 2 SCC 1).
- Insurance. Professional indemnity insurance spread, as the doctors had predicted in V.P. Shantha.
- Defensive practice. In Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, AIR 2009 SC 2049, the Court said that "frivolous complaints against doctors have increased by leaps and bounds". It noted doctors avoiding steps that carry risk, for fear of complaints.
3. For hospitals: liability for the whole team.
Facts. In Savita Garg v. Director, National Heart Institute, (2004) 8 SCC 56, a widow complained to the National Commission that her husband had died at the Institute through its negligence. The Commission dismissed her complaint because she had not joined the treating doctors and nurses.
Held. The Supreme Court restored the complaint. Once a patient is admitted, "it is the responsibility of the Hospital to provide the best service". Where negligence is alleged, "the burden lies on the hospital" to justify its staff's conduct.
Why it matters. A patient need not identify every doctor and nurse. The hospital answers for its system and its people.
4. For compensation: realistic awards.
Facts. In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, decided on 14 May 2009, a twenty-year-old engineering student was left paraplegic after removal of a chest tumour in 1990. The National Commission awarded him Rs 14 lakh.
Held. The Supreme Court raised the award to Rs 1 crore, with interest. It said that "if a case is made out, the Court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation".
Why it matters. Consumer forums became places where serious medical injury is properly compensated. In Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha, decided on 24 October 2013, the Court fixed compensation of Rs 6,08,00,550 for a death caused by negligent treatment.
The position now
- The 2019 Act keeps the rule. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 repealed the 1986 Act (section 107) and keeps the same definition of "service" (section 2(42)).
- The forum is chosen by what was paid. Jurisdiction depends on "the value of the goods or services paid as consideration". Under the 2021 Rules, the District Commission hears complaints where up to fifty lakh rupees was paid. The State Commission takes those up to two crore, and the National Commission those above.
- Punitive damages. A Commission may now award them (proviso to section 39(1)(d)).
- No mediation in grave cases. "Medical negligence resulting in grievous injury or death" may not be sent to mediation (rule 4(a), Consumer Protection (Mediation) Rules, 2020).
- V.P. Shantha survives. In Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi, 2024 INSC 410, two judges said it "deserves to be revisited". On 7 November 2024 a bench of three judges held that "the reference to a larger Bench was not necessary".
| Before V.P. Shantha | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Remedy | Civil suit, criminal case, Council | Consumer forum added |
| Speed and cost | Years; court fees | Summary procedure, local forum |
| Before V.P. Shantha | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Who could claim | The patient as plaintiff | Paying, insured, employer-paid and mixed-hospital patients; family members |
| Proof | Expert evidence | Not needed in simple cases |
| Doctors' practice | Informal records and consent | Written consent, full records, insurance |
| Hospitals | Sued doctor by doctor | Liable as a whole; burden on the hospital |
| Awards | Rare | Large and realistic |
The limits
- Free Government hospitals stay outside. Where no patient pays, there is no "service" (conclusion (9)).
- Complicated cases. Where heavy expert evidence is needed, a forum may send the complainant to the civil court.
- Delay returned. Nizam's Institute took more than eighteen years from the operation to the final award.
Conclusion. V.P. Shantha did not change the standard of care. It changed the remedy, by bringing paid medical service within the Consumer Protection Act. Patients gained a cheap and quick forum, and the protection reached free, insured and family patients. Hospitals became answerable for their staff, with the burden on them (Savita Garg). Doctors changed their practice towards records, written consent and insurance. Awards grew realistic (Nizam's Institute). The 2019 Act and the order of 7 November 2024 keep the rule in place.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the LL.B. 3 Years Semester 6 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Notes + Solved papers: ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or solved papers only: ₹499
Or notes only: ₹499
The question paper itself stays free, and so does the syllabus.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.